I am. I thought the Religious Right movement was dead: Jerry Falwell died, James Dobson panicked, and Pat Robertson endorsed an immoral (by their standards) candidate. But here comes Romney and Huckabee: Two anti-intellectualists who have no knowledge of anything outside their misguided, bigoted religious beliefs. Ron Paul, whom I'm less afraid of and might be able to tolerate as president, openly stated that Huckabee reminded me of fascism. I can't help but agree: Do you know what Christian Reconstructionism is? http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisrec.html. This is the political platform of Mike & Mitt. Huck might seem like a nice guy, but this is his guise for totalitarian, theocratic politics, which are derived from the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy and Leviticus (try reading for 15 minutes without a "WTF!?"), involving the isolation of AIDS sufferers, further discrimination of gays & lesbians, possibly atheists and non-Christians. I'll see you in the Hell House/Exodus International, my droog*! What moderate Christian David Kuo pointed out to Chris Matthews and James Dobson's pet Tony Perkins, who just doesnt get it, on Hardball is that Huckabee (and thus also Romney) is using his faith for political gain. Jesus himself takes the trunk seat in the minivan to political ambition once again. In the great tradition of the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, the majority of the wars in pre-1700 Europe, Jesus is forgotten in favor of worldly political ambition. And this ambition will result, as it always has, in the loss of life and freedom for all of us. In a way, these two men are just as, or more immoral than Guliani, Thompson, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist combined precisely because they are using their personal beliefs for political gain. Jesus is being paraded around in a cage like a famous captive in the streets, displayed to all of the people in town.
Once again, Christianity is completely bankrupt as a moral guide because it can so easily be not only forgotten, but used, in the most shameless of ways, in the face of temptation, especially political ambition.
Will they see this? Twice they have not, and if they fail again, we will all be damned.
Welcome to the Republic of Gilead, young Handmaid...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Exodus International is an organization funded by James Dobson's Babylon, Focus on the Family, to convert self-hating homosexuals into heterosexuals with A Clockwork Orange-style torture. Read about it here: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=327
Also, according to a recent article in IR available online, the ex-gay movement is gaining momentum. Welcome back to Sick Sad World (Daria, but seriously.)!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Fall of the RR, Attacking Iran, Why I Can't Believe in a God
The time has come: There are far more pressing issues (in fact, most of the "issues" are non-issues) than "abortion" and "gay marriage," such as Social Security, infinite war (a third preemptive attack is being planned), global warming, etc. James Dobson and his deranged ilk have no plans that appeal to even the most xenophobic of Christians that could possibly even address these real issues. Being responsible for Bush is the Mark of Shame, as unavoidable as Hesther Prynne's "A." On top of their revealed sexual hypocrisy, the blatant, complete failure of Christian ethics in the face of real temptation, they seem stand for something completely alien and misanthropic: Mosaic (Old Testament) law, and this does not appeal to anyone outside the 30% fringe, which is probably less now after the volumes of stories of sexual "deviance" and moral failure.
The RR has gotten the Republican party into disarray, it has been dragged through worse than mud, it has no intellect, its thinktanks have been loaded with ideologues, greedy corporate men who can profit at the expense and exploitation of others with an easy conscience, and unthinking sycophants. The Republican party has an opportunity to fight back. Dobson is still trying to excercise his tyranny upon the party, but his power is noticably waning, as the saner, though authoritarian Guliani is ahead in the Red polls, despite Ayatollah Dobson's warnings. It's time to put the senile 71-year-old Dobson in a nursing home for the mentally impaired. Just because Dobson hates gays doesnt mean you have to, too. Don't be guilty by association.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush War Engine is being lubricated with apolcalyptic rhetoric. Attacking Iran will have catastrophic consequences: Our oil comes from Iran. Iran's allies will shun us. Israel will be invaded. There are better ways of addressing this problem. A third war will tax us so completely that we may as well suffer from complete economic collapse, the kind of dystopia imagined by economists regarding complete oil well consumption: Gas at $10+/gal., inflation skyrockets, the economy is crippled because of extravagant prices. If we attack Iran, it will be over for us. We cannot bomb Iran.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot believe in a god primarily because of the question of motive; the truth is that, while at first glace to the untrained mind, the idea of a higher intelligence, a "watchmaker," looks like a good idea, it raises far more questions than it answers, such as motive. I cannot rule out megalomania. What would the watchmaker want with us? Would it matter to it what we did with certain parts of our anatomy? Why would it matter?
What gave birth to the watchmaker?
What if we arent the "prized creation" that we believe ourselves to be? Most of us believe that extra terrestrial life is quite certain, and what if that race were far more intelligent than we are? What if the "prized creation" were on another planet? What if, being that we are so "imperfect" and "flawed," said god tried again? Perhaps it tried billions upon billions of times? Did it ever get it right? Did it realize that it had to be more tolerant and less domineering to get what it wanted?
Are you sure the Bible wasnt intended for aliens? (more of a joke, but I hope you get my point)
The RR has gotten the Republican party into disarray, it has been dragged through worse than mud, it has no intellect, its thinktanks have been loaded with ideologues, greedy corporate men who can profit at the expense and exploitation of others with an easy conscience, and unthinking sycophants. The Republican party has an opportunity to fight back. Dobson is still trying to excercise his tyranny upon the party, but his power is noticably waning, as the saner, though authoritarian Guliani is ahead in the Red polls, despite Ayatollah Dobson's warnings. It's time to put the senile 71-year-old Dobson in a nursing home for the mentally impaired. Just because Dobson hates gays doesnt mean you have to, too. Don't be guilty by association.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush War Engine is being lubricated with apolcalyptic rhetoric. Attacking Iran will have catastrophic consequences: Our oil comes from Iran. Iran's allies will shun us. Israel will be invaded. There are better ways of addressing this problem. A third war will tax us so completely that we may as well suffer from complete economic collapse, the kind of dystopia imagined by economists regarding complete oil well consumption: Gas at $10+/gal., inflation skyrockets, the economy is crippled because of extravagant prices. If we attack Iran, it will be over for us. We cannot bomb Iran.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot believe in a god primarily because of the question of motive; the truth is that, while at first glace to the untrained mind, the idea of a higher intelligence, a "watchmaker," looks like a good idea, it raises far more questions than it answers, such as motive. I cannot rule out megalomania. What would the watchmaker want with us? Would it matter to it what we did with certain parts of our anatomy? Why would it matter?
What gave birth to the watchmaker?
What if we arent the "prized creation" that we believe ourselves to be? Most of us believe that extra terrestrial life is quite certain, and what if that race were far more intelligent than we are? What if the "prized creation" were on another planet? What if, being that we are so "imperfect" and "flawed," said god tried again? Perhaps it tried billions upon billions of times? Did it ever get it right? Did it realize that it had to be more tolerant and less domineering to get what it wanted?
Are you sure the Bible wasnt intended for aliens? (more of a joke, but I hope you get my point)
Friday, August 24, 2007
Ideology vs Personal Opinion, Extremism
Ideology: Political opinion one wishes to implement into policy; impose upon others.
Personal opinion: Beliefs one keeps to oneself to respect another's autonomy.
What is the difference between a moderate and an extremist?
In Christianity, the 'moderate' recognizes that there aer contradictions and evils (such as the stoning of disobedient children in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) within the Bible and that some, if not most of it should be taken 'with a grain of salt,' and does not wish to evangelize or impose his or her view onto others.
The extremist manipulates the moderate position to his purpose by accepting that the Bible is the 'Word of God' and is perfectly content with not only buying all of it, but also has no qualms about imposing it upon others. However, the wonderous thing is that very few people have ever murdered their children (by decree of OT prophets), or even sacrificed their first born (early OT, repealed in later books (a contradiction if 100% of it is 100% true!)), though many are severely beaten thanks to James Dobson's helpful 'family counselling.'
In atheism, what might be considered 'extremist' in religion does not exist. Even Sam Harris does not suggest that we wage genocide. Most of which hold our personal opinions and do not wish to destroy religion completely, but simply to boot it from the public sphere because of the horrible consequences of so many past and present theocracies, and rampant corruption among religious leaders, revealing to those who are not blind that religion is morally bankrupt and holds no weight when real challenges must be faced (challenges of especially temptation: money, sex, and power).
An extremist is basically someone whose ideology and personal opinion are intertwined. Example: I am an atheist who is in love with Russian literature, which is heavily Christian. I don't like Christianity in the least bit but I appreciate the insight and skill of Dostoevsky's work in The Brothers Karamazov and believe it to be the best defense of Christianity. The minute you have decided to ban/burn any media whoatsoever, you are an extremist, not even considering the blood that would likely follow (1933 Germany). From banning and burning The Satanic Verses to calling for Rushdie's assassination.
The minute you wish to impose your own will upon the people without regard for consequence, drunk on utopian ideals, and cease to care for what matters most-The quality and value of human life-you are an extremist.
Personal opinion: Beliefs one keeps to oneself to respect another's autonomy.
What is the difference between a moderate and an extremist?
In Christianity, the 'moderate' recognizes that there aer contradictions and evils (such as the stoning of disobedient children in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) within the Bible and that some, if not most of it should be taken 'with a grain of salt,' and does not wish to evangelize or impose his or her view onto others.
The extremist manipulates the moderate position to his purpose by accepting that the Bible is the 'Word of God' and is perfectly content with not only buying all of it, but also has no qualms about imposing it upon others. However, the wonderous thing is that very few people have ever murdered their children (by decree of OT prophets), or even sacrificed their first born (early OT, repealed in later books (a contradiction if 100% of it is 100% true!)), though many are severely beaten thanks to James Dobson's helpful 'family counselling.'
In atheism, what might be considered 'extremist' in religion does not exist. Even Sam Harris does not suggest that we wage genocide. Most of which hold our personal opinions and do not wish to destroy religion completely, but simply to boot it from the public sphere because of the horrible consequences of so many past and present theocracies, and rampant corruption among religious leaders, revealing to those who are not blind that religion is morally bankrupt and holds no weight when real challenges must be faced (challenges of especially temptation: money, sex, and power).
An extremist is basically someone whose ideology and personal opinion are intertwined. Example: I am an atheist who is in love with Russian literature, which is heavily Christian. I don't like Christianity in the least bit but I appreciate the insight and skill of Dostoevsky's work in The Brothers Karamazov and believe it to be the best defense of Christianity. The minute you have decided to ban/burn any media whoatsoever, you are an extremist, not even considering the blood that would likely follow (1933 Germany). From banning and burning The Satanic Verses to calling for Rushdie's assassination.
The minute you wish to impose your own will upon the people without regard for consequence, drunk on utopian ideals, and cease to care for what matters most-The quality and value of human life-you are an extremist.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Candidates; Fundamentalism; Silly Topics of American Democracy
All political candidates - even ones I would otherwise be happy to vote for - are pandering to the Christian Right. I read a few days ago that Mrs Clinton and Barack Obama have set up subcommittees to pander to this fringe group. Granted, this is not as shameless as the Republican candidates, who are essentially political prostitutes for the Christian despots. And no one-NO ONE-is trying to pander to non-religious people (some say there are only 10 million of us). Granted, the "fringe" is a huge electorate - 25% of total, the majority of Bush's 30-35% of 2004. And who is this Fred Thompson guy? Just another balding Republican WASP? If he's anti-government, then why is the CR so affectionate with him?
Here is the CR political philosophy - cut government to a desired size (cripple it), and then rebuild it with Christianized institutions and misosophies (a play on 'philosophies' - phil: love; sophie: knowledge; mis - hate; misosophy: hatred of knowledge), and then expand it to the size of a police state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian fundamentalism/evangelism, is very very cunning. I realized this while watching Jesus Camp: The deeper your "relationship" with Jesus, the deeper the control. Once you confess your undying allegiance to The Savior, it is up to your political instructor to tell you how you must behave and think. They claim to have an individual relationship with a dead man whom we dont even know existed, but it's not really a relationship at all. It's really like the Chinese adoration of Chairman Mao or the Russian love of Lenin. Once you forfeit your soul to Jesus, your thought patterns are dictated to you by Die Fuhrer and you are completely devoid of individual personality and individual notions of right and wrong. Just another organic automaton.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy has truly failed in America. Why is it important to care about Fred Thompson's trophy wife, or Guliani's & Hillary's marital problems, or the fact that Obama tried pot? The only candidates whose marital problems are significant are Huckabees', Brownbacks', and Romneys', to the extent that they demonstrate their theocratic intentions and to the extent that we can expect them to further damage the area of women's health and sexual science in adherence with Biblical tyranny.
One area in which our government, with the help of the media, has failed us is the No Child Left Behind Act. It sounds good on paper, much like Communism, but it's detrimental to education, much like Communism is to the economy. Teachers nationwide continue to bemoan this extremely destructive piece of legislature, in another area where Curious George has made a mess like a clumsy and incompetent repairman. There are extremely important things, as the argument goes, that cannot be assessed with standardized exams. This is an argument I buy wholesale. Having recently been through standardized exams myself, I know they are very limited in scope and really should not be trusted, complete with trick questions and nonsensical, boring topics. If we want to know if a child understands what he or she reads, assign her a well-written short story that will not put her to sleep. Where do they get these stories from, anyway? It also doesnt help that most of the answers are often almost exactly the same and all could be argued for (as was my experience with the SATs).
And what is the punishment upon a school if enough of the children 'fail'? The intervention of a corrupt right-wing federal government complete with a Soviet-style bureaucracy, a cut-off of funding (isn't that counter-intuitive?), and school vouchers for the parents so they can send their children to Christian automaton factories so they can blow up abortion clinics and watch The 700 Club and vote against their best interests.
Here is the CR political philosophy - cut government to a desired size (cripple it), and then rebuild it with Christianized institutions and misosophies (a play on 'philosophies' - phil: love; sophie: knowledge; mis - hate; misosophy: hatred of knowledge), and then expand it to the size of a police state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian fundamentalism/evangelism, is very very cunning. I realized this while watching Jesus Camp: The deeper your "relationship" with Jesus, the deeper the control. Once you confess your undying allegiance to The Savior, it is up to your political instructor to tell you how you must behave and think. They claim to have an individual relationship with a dead man whom we dont even know existed, but it's not really a relationship at all. It's really like the Chinese adoration of Chairman Mao or the Russian love of Lenin. Once you forfeit your soul to Jesus, your thought patterns are dictated to you by Die Fuhrer and you are completely devoid of individual personality and individual notions of right and wrong. Just another organic automaton.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy has truly failed in America. Why is it important to care about Fred Thompson's trophy wife, or Guliani's & Hillary's marital problems, or the fact that Obama tried pot? The only candidates whose marital problems are significant are Huckabees', Brownbacks', and Romneys', to the extent that they demonstrate their theocratic intentions and to the extent that we can expect them to further damage the area of women's health and sexual science in adherence with Biblical tyranny.
One area in which our government, with the help of the media, has failed us is the No Child Left Behind Act. It sounds good on paper, much like Communism, but it's detrimental to education, much like Communism is to the economy. Teachers nationwide continue to bemoan this extremely destructive piece of legislature, in another area where Curious George has made a mess like a clumsy and incompetent repairman. There are extremely important things, as the argument goes, that cannot be assessed with standardized exams. This is an argument I buy wholesale. Having recently been through standardized exams myself, I know they are very limited in scope and really should not be trusted, complete with trick questions and nonsensical, boring topics. If we want to know if a child understands what he or she reads, assign her a well-written short story that will not put her to sleep. Where do they get these stories from, anyway? It also doesnt help that most of the answers are often almost exactly the same and all could be argued for (as was my experience with the SATs).
And what is the punishment upon a school if enough of the children 'fail'? The intervention of a corrupt right-wing federal government complete with a Soviet-style bureaucracy, a cut-off of funding (isn't that counter-intuitive?), and school vouchers for the parents so they can send their children to Christian automaton factories so they can blow up abortion clinics and watch The 700 Club and vote against their best interests.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Christianity - History vs Tenets, Biblical Authority
The first semester of sophomore year, my History professor, relating specifically to Bolshevism, said that ideologies could be valued by their tenets and/or their historical application. This, I think, could be applied to religion as well.
While a friend of mine, a Christian and equally fiery about her beliefs, does not seem to consider human application of Christianity throughout history, while I emphasize history and application a great deal.
We could say that Christianity, before its legitimization in Rome, was not evil. But the moment it was, and the Catholic Church was set up (encompassing, at the time, nearly all of Christianity, the underground sects it proceeded to persecute), it drove on to gain political power and thus became evil.
The point I wish to make is that Christianity, historically, is merely a convenient disguise for political and personal aims. Even now, throughout the United States, Christianity is primarily a political ideology, whose only purpose is to dismantle democracy. Christianity, thus, is merely a means of gaining and using power and authority.
Yet, my friend believes that Christianity, taken by itself, is not evil. Yet she could not explain to me the goal or purpose of Christianity in concrete terms. Why, exactly, should I be compelled to believe in Jesus? How would this belief give me hope when it is those who profess to buy the Golden Rule and how we shouldn't judge each other, betray those beliefs and have turned human society upside-down for the past 2,000 years?
The problem I have with "faith" is a big one. I define faith as "a belief in something that is held without or even contrary to evidence". This could range from Santa Claus to the Tooth Fairy, to Jesus, all the way up to the idea that Jews are the cause of financial difficulty and must be eliminated, or that the German race is superior to all others. Did anyone ask for evidence for any of these beliefs? The minor, harmless beliefs were immune to the burden of proof. Those that demanded proof for Hitler's plan for the fate of European Jews were silenced, and the large majority of Germans put faith in Hitler's rallies.
Back to Christianity, why should I be compelled to believe that a vengeful god (Old Testament) had a change of heart with the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and why should I believe in Jesus when the Golden Rule was really originated by Eastern philosophers 400 years before him?
Why is the Bible something I should believe in? Why should I buy the argument that the authors of the Bible were "inspired by God" when we don't even know who half of them are? Why should I believe the Bible when there is a large collection of significant works that were not included in it, meaning, that the Bible isn't even the whole story? Why is the Bible an authority? Does it sound authoritative, does it seem like it was written by intelligent people? Is God a charismatic figure? Is it simply because within its pages, it demands, sometimes under threat of destruction to the reader, belief and allegiance to its cause? Do its pages include an applicable and humanistic, respectable moral structure between the blood and violence? Is it morally useful to believe that Christianity's founder, Jesus "Christ" actually rose from the dead? Should I believe something that was blatantly capitalized upon as a justification for the most heinous human atrocities?
While a friend of mine, a Christian and equally fiery about her beliefs, does not seem to consider human application of Christianity throughout history, while I emphasize history and application a great deal.
We could say that Christianity, before its legitimization in Rome, was not evil. But the moment it was, and the Catholic Church was set up (encompassing, at the time, nearly all of Christianity, the underground sects it proceeded to persecute), it drove on to gain political power and thus became evil.
The point I wish to make is that Christianity, historically, is merely a convenient disguise for political and personal aims. Even now, throughout the United States, Christianity is primarily a political ideology, whose only purpose is to dismantle democracy. Christianity, thus, is merely a means of gaining and using power and authority.
Yet, my friend believes that Christianity, taken by itself, is not evil. Yet she could not explain to me the goal or purpose of Christianity in concrete terms. Why, exactly, should I be compelled to believe in Jesus? How would this belief give me hope when it is those who profess to buy the Golden Rule and how we shouldn't judge each other, betray those beliefs and have turned human society upside-down for the past 2,000 years?
The problem I have with "faith" is a big one. I define faith as "a belief in something that is held without or even contrary to evidence". This could range from Santa Claus to the Tooth Fairy, to Jesus, all the way up to the idea that Jews are the cause of financial difficulty and must be eliminated, or that the German race is superior to all others. Did anyone ask for evidence for any of these beliefs? The minor, harmless beliefs were immune to the burden of proof. Those that demanded proof for Hitler's plan for the fate of European Jews were silenced, and the large majority of Germans put faith in Hitler's rallies.
Back to Christianity, why should I be compelled to believe that a vengeful god (Old Testament) had a change of heart with the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and why should I believe in Jesus when the Golden Rule was really originated by Eastern philosophers 400 years before him?
Why is the Bible something I should believe in? Why should I buy the argument that the authors of the Bible were "inspired by God" when we don't even know who half of them are? Why should I believe the Bible when there is a large collection of significant works that were not included in it, meaning, that the Bible isn't even the whole story? Why is the Bible an authority? Does it sound authoritative, does it seem like it was written by intelligent people? Is God a charismatic figure? Is it simply because within its pages, it demands, sometimes under threat of destruction to the reader, belief and allegiance to its cause? Do its pages include an applicable and humanistic, respectable moral structure between the blood and violence? Is it morally useful to believe that Christianity's founder, Jesus "Christ" actually rose from the dead? Should I believe something that was blatantly capitalized upon as a justification for the most heinous human atrocities?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Catholicism - Back to its Roots
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html
When I say "roots," I mean 16th century Spain roots, or even just about 1000 CE.
Benedict XVI a theologian? Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were theologians.
Maybe the Hitler Youth Pope is on to something. Something that can maybe get rid of some of the fascists, distract them. Distract them with a Christian internal jihad! It certainly seems like the perfect time tio strart namecalling.
Devout Pope-believing Catholic: "Well Jesus loves us the most because we have a pseudo-dictator!"
New Life Church member: "Yeah, well each of us has a little Hitler in our community! We still get the same Nuremburg Rallies as you do."
This seems like just another one of those episodes, little variations on Dostoevsky's brilliant Grand Inquisitor tale, where a Grand Inquisitor simply tells Jesus that his work is done, and the powerlusting Catholic machine will inherit what he has done for themselves.
Can America turn, as universal religious tolerance is at an all-time low--practically Middle Ages levels--, into a Christian Iraq? Sunnis and Shiites vying for power and dominion over there. so Catholics and evangelicals could be taking up arms over something even sillier. The Vatican and the SBC should take up arms. Of course, the SBC would be decimated, as the Catholic Church as been a political power for almost 1500 years, and America (particularly minorities and women) would be taking it where the sun never shines no matter who won.
It's quite sad. The transition from the 20th century to the 21st has been hailed with the ascension of historically conservative [not American conservatism] megalomaniacs all over the world, and not only are we going backwards instead of forwards, but also the world is very unsafe for thinking people. Hell, we could all be nuked and I'll see you back in the feudal era.
It really doesn't matter what religion any powerful leader belongs to--Islam or Christianity--they will still wish to destroy, to conquer. The redeeming fact about Islam is that they don't care: They will just behead the prisoner and he/she won't feel much. Maybe they'll blow him/her to a few pieces. The Christian, on the other hand, wants control of the prisoner, much like what Alex goes through in A Clockwork Orange. He will live as a slave for the American fascist cause. They act in much the same fashion as the Inner Party in Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Sure moderates plead that they don't do these things, but they mostly just avert their eyes when their zealous counterpart pushes the button.
When I say "roots," I mean 16th century Spain roots, or even just about 1000 CE.
Benedict XVI a theologian? Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were theologians.
Maybe the Hitler Youth Pope is on to something. Something that can maybe get rid of some of the fascists, distract them. Distract them with a Christian internal jihad! It certainly seems like the perfect time tio strart namecalling.
Devout Pope-believing Catholic: "Well Jesus loves us the most because we have a pseudo-dictator!"
New Life Church member: "Yeah, well each of us has a little Hitler in our community! We still get the same Nuremburg Rallies as you do."
This seems like just another one of those episodes, little variations on Dostoevsky's brilliant Grand Inquisitor tale, where a Grand Inquisitor simply tells Jesus that his work is done, and the powerlusting Catholic machine will inherit what he has done for themselves.
Can America turn, as universal religious tolerance is at an all-time low--practically Middle Ages levels--, into a Christian Iraq? Sunnis and Shiites vying for power and dominion over there. so Catholics and evangelicals could be taking up arms over something even sillier. The Vatican and the SBC should take up arms. Of course, the SBC would be decimated, as the Catholic Church as been a political power for almost 1500 years, and America (particularly minorities and women) would be taking it where the sun never shines no matter who won.
It's quite sad. The transition from the 20th century to the 21st has been hailed with the ascension of historically conservative [not American conservatism] megalomaniacs all over the world, and not only are we going backwards instead of forwards, but also the world is very unsafe for thinking people. Hell, we could all be nuked and I'll see you back in the feudal era.
It really doesn't matter what religion any powerful leader belongs to--Islam or Christianity--they will still wish to destroy, to conquer. The redeeming fact about Islam is that they don't care: They will just behead the prisoner and he/she won't feel much. Maybe they'll blow him/her to a few pieces. The Christian, on the other hand, wants control of the prisoner, much like what Alex goes through in A Clockwork Orange. He will live as a slave for the American fascist cause. They act in much the same fashion as the Inner Party in Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Sure moderates plead that they don't do these things, but they mostly just avert their eyes when their zealous counterpart pushes the button.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
"Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right"
"Clinton did it!" So does that mean Scooter Libby and the Republican mafia-esque loyalists should be let go? Lying about a sex scandal and lying under oath about national security matters are two entirely different circumstances. Libby WAS convicted, but Clinton wasn't. "Clinton did it" is the main argument used by Republicans in the Scooter Libby case. Yet, if they will care to remember back in the 2000 campaign, their idol, George W Bush, specifically said that he would not be another Clinton. The main reason why he won was because he was supposed to bring integrity back to the Oval Office. And he did not. This is something Republican officials fear most: The realization that their "Man of Integrity" has a backbone made of glass. Just examine his conduct towards large companies, specifically oil companies. "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right" was back when you were kids. You're in your 50s and beyond. Besides the fact that Republicans are supposed to be "tough on crime": except when it's one of the Family. "OMG Clinton received a blowjob from an intern! We need to get him out!" is now: "Uh-oh! One of our loyalists committed a crime! Who do we pay to get him out?" It's all very funny to me. So much for "God" and "morality" and "virtues" and "values." I think I'll quote Tolstoy again now:
"Could it be that all the talk about justice, goodness, law, religion, God, and so on, was nothing but so many words to conceal the grossest self-interest and cruelty?" Resurrection by Leo Tolstoy, p. 387
So the question is, has there been enough of this self-righteous, arrogant hypocrisy to get the religious fascists to go away yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think we should celebrate July 4th anymore. We don't know what it means anymore. Today, for all most of us care, we could be under the theocratic rule of a King of England, and wouldnt be able to tell the difference. Some of us forget when 9/11 happened.
The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have lost their true meaning in Tsar Bush II's xenophobic rants. Most of us take our freedom for granted and really don't (or can't) understand the consequences of his terms in office in relation to what we supposedly have/had (a democracy).
I understand. Keith Olbermann understands. Edward Murrow understood (Murrow was the journalist who revealed Joseph McCarthy as a Communist). Al Gore understands. Tricky Dick II understands (The first Tricky Dick was Nixon, the second is Cheney; he's not stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing it). Christian fascist leaders must understand. The average American does not understand. And that is why American democracy will fail unless we (those of us who know) do something.
We should not only relearn our political history, but each and every one of us should have a copy of the US Constitution in our homes and actually read it and understand it. Until then, there can be no holiday for what we as a nation do not remember or consider relevent.
"Could it be that all the talk about justice, goodness, law, religion, God, and so on, was nothing but so many words to conceal the grossest self-interest and cruelty?" Resurrection by Leo Tolstoy, p. 387
So the question is, has there been enough of this self-righteous, arrogant hypocrisy to get the religious fascists to go away yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think we should celebrate July 4th anymore. We don't know what it means anymore. Today, for all most of us care, we could be under the theocratic rule of a King of England, and wouldnt be able to tell the difference. Some of us forget when 9/11 happened.
The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have lost their true meaning in Tsar Bush II's xenophobic rants. Most of us take our freedom for granted and really don't (or can't) understand the consequences of his terms in office in relation to what we supposedly have/had (a democracy).
I understand. Keith Olbermann understands. Edward Murrow understood (Murrow was the journalist who revealed Joseph McCarthy as a Communist). Al Gore understands. Tricky Dick II understands (The first Tricky Dick was Nixon, the second is Cheney; he's not stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing and is deliberately doing it). Christian fascist leaders must understand. The average American does not understand. And that is why American democracy will fail unless we (those of us who know) do something.
We should not only relearn our political history, but each and every one of us should have a copy of the US Constitution in our homes and actually read it and understand it. Until then, there can be no holiday for what we as a nation do not remember or consider relevent.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Al Gore Book
The Al Gore book, The Assault on Reason, is basically a companion to American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. Al Gore says a lot of things I've known for at least a year, but also is brave enough to point out that surveillance technology is not only advanced, but also widely available, and as I enjoy pointing out, Orwell's nightmare is actually possible so long as people aren't paying attention (And when are they ever?)! Gore argues that this might not be like those times in the Cold War when we later regretted using illegal surveillance.
The serious thing is that our complacency in dealing with George W Bush can and probably will set a precedent: "He didn't get caught or punished, so I won't either," not because we might not not care, but because the six megaconglomerates are firing our survival neurons every few miliseconds when we are glued to the Huxleyan glass teat. America will always be distracted, which is why democracy no longer exists in America.
There is no "well-informed citizenry," as issues themselves are secondary, or even thirdly, to money and airtime. More money = more ads = more repetition = more people remember = more votes. Gore calls this, cited from another person, "Manufactured consent." Sort of like buying something.
If you hear Pepsi (or Coke, if you prefer) commercials enough times, even if you've never had soda before, you will buy it simply because you remembered it and nothing challenged it in your mind. This is what politics and elections have become.
The degredation of ideas through simple repetition. Do you know how many times I hear the same ridiculous arguments for evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity and/or Creationism/UiD? It doesn't matter how absurd a concept is. Repetition, repetition, repetition. The more an argument is repeated, drilled, the more impervious it is to reason. Has the person who has bothered me about Jesus ever read anything by Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins? Probably not. Who made the silly connection between a shady charlatan (Jesus) and evolution? His educators. Many, many, of the minions are not intelligent enough even to grasp why 2 + 2 = 4, let alone devise arguments for their collective cause.I wrote a lengthy paper on the Russian Revolution and I read that the Bolsheviks were the same way - only able to repeat Lenin's rhetoric, completely unable to think for themselves.
So where is this "democracy?" Doesn't "democracy" require active participation in the political process? Now, instead of the political leaders being shaped by the people, the leaders are shaping the people. No, politicians themselves are not involved at all. That's work they don't have to do. Television does that job for them. The political leaders would really be the six international megaconglomerates - Vivendi Universal, Disney, NewsCorp, AOL-TimeWarner, Viacom, and Bertelsmann AG, each endorsing a political agenda for its own aims. They choose, through their discretion, what content they air, specific to what they want the public to think. The TV is the most effective tool for this aim by far.
Mr Gore states that the problem lies in that TV communication only goes in one direction, and all responses to the programming are effectively politically irrelevant because the transmitters cannot receive as the receivers cannot transmit, meaning that any reaction or response is futile.
The corporations take whatever candidate they endorse and throw him/her on the network for repetition. America, glued to that Huxleyan box for an average of four hours a day, is rendered by the confiscation of his free will, due to the manipulation of neurochemicals by stimuli in rapid sucession, becomes, effectively , a complacent zombie.
I was just watching a movie a few hours ago on TV that was awful. The thing is that I hated it, but I could not get myself to walk away. I think there's a Weird Al Yankovic song that goes something like, "Like a train wreck / I did not want to stare / But I could not look away" (It's titled "Jerry Springer," I remember now). This is how television robs people of their free will. "Why can't you just turn it off?" Because it compells one to look. And to keep watching.
Televangelism works the same way as Hitler's Nuremburg Rallies. Wealthy con artists, demagogues, and charlatans can buy their own television networks and rally people in their favor using a simple box with silicon chips and a screen, using the same methods I explained previously: Repetition, repetition, repetition. On a massive scale.
Our democracy is no more insofar as people have lost the ability to participate. Yes, we can vote, but how and why are we voting? We have been told by the TV and those that control it who to vote for. Sometimes, against our crippled, though breathing, better judgement, we march on to vote for the person who will hold our hand and leap into the abyss.
The serious thing is that our complacency in dealing with George W Bush can and probably will set a precedent: "He didn't get caught or punished, so I won't either," not because we might not not care, but because the six megaconglomerates are firing our survival neurons every few miliseconds when we are glued to the Huxleyan glass teat. America will always be distracted, which is why democracy no longer exists in America.
There is no "well-informed citizenry," as issues themselves are secondary, or even thirdly, to money and airtime. More money = more ads = more repetition = more people remember = more votes. Gore calls this, cited from another person, "Manufactured consent." Sort of like buying something.
If you hear Pepsi (or Coke, if you prefer) commercials enough times, even if you've never had soda before, you will buy it simply because you remembered it and nothing challenged it in your mind. This is what politics and elections have become.
The degredation of ideas through simple repetition. Do you know how many times I hear the same ridiculous arguments for evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity and/or Creationism/UiD? It doesn't matter how absurd a concept is. Repetition, repetition, repetition. The more an argument is repeated, drilled, the more impervious it is to reason. Has the person who has bothered me about Jesus ever read anything by Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins? Probably not. Who made the silly connection between a shady charlatan (Jesus) and evolution? His educators. Many, many, of the minions are not intelligent enough even to grasp why 2 + 2 = 4, let alone devise arguments for their collective cause.I wrote a lengthy paper on the Russian Revolution and I read that the Bolsheviks were the same way - only able to repeat Lenin's rhetoric, completely unable to think for themselves.
So where is this "democracy?" Doesn't "democracy" require active participation in the political process? Now, instead of the political leaders being shaped by the people, the leaders are shaping the people. No, politicians themselves are not involved at all. That's work they don't have to do. Television does that job for them. The political leaders would really be the six international megaconglomerates - Vivendi Universal, Disney, NewsCorp, AOL-TimeWarner, Viacom, and Bertelsmann AG, each endorsing a political agenda for its own aims. They choose, through their discretion, what content they air, specific to what they want the public to think. The TV is the most effective tool for this aim by far.
Mr Gore states that the problem lies in that TV communication only goes in one direction, and all responses to the programming are effectively politically irrelevant because the transmitters cannot receive as the receivers cannot transmit, meaning that any reaction or response is futile.
The corporations take whatever candidate they endorse and throw him/her on the network for repetition. America, glued to that Huxleyan box for an average of four hours a day, is rendered by the confiscation of his free will, due to the manipulation of neurochemicals by stimuli in rapid sucession, becomes, effectively , a complacent zombie.
I was just watching a movie a few hours ago on TV that was awful. The thing is that I hated it, but I could not get myself to walk away. I think there's a Weird Al Yankovic song that goes something like, "Like a train wreck / I did not want to stare / But I could not look away" (It's titled "Jerry Springer," I remember now). This is how television robs people of their free will. "Why can't you just turn it off?" Because it compells one to look. And to keep watching.
Televangelism works the same way as Hitler's Nuremburg Rallies. Wealthy con artists, demagogues, and charlatans can buy their own television networks and rally people in their favor using a simple box with silicon chips and a screen, using the same methods I explained previously: Repetition, repetition, repetition. On a massive scale.
Our democracy is no more insofar as people have lost the ability to participate. Yes, we can vote, but how and why are we voting? We have been told by the TV and those that control it who to vote for. Sometimes, against our crippled, though breathing, better judgement, we march on to vote for the person who will hold our hand and leap into the abyss.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
New Area of Study
Now that I know much more than I did previously about the Russian Revolution, another, perhaps more urgant, subject has captured my attention: The Nazi Party's rise to power in Germany. I am eager to learn how such a destructive force could have come to power, though what small bits of information I do know tells me that anti-Semetic beliefs have been prevalent in Germany since, as far as I am aware, the latter half of the 19th century. Another area of anti-Semetic motivation comes from an article I recently read about the heritage of many Bolshevik/Soviet leaders in Russia, listing many, many of the prominent figures in Russia at that time as Jewish, and ideological strife between the USSR and the Third Reich was always tense, comparable to the ideological struggle between the USA and the USSR after WW2, but without external interference motivated by ideology*.
Count Leo Tolstoy argues in War & Peace (which I am almost finished with) that historians only attribute a movement to the actions of one man instead of all the forces that lead to it and make it inevitable, and while Count Tolstoy is remarkably intelligent, he misses the fact that the job of the historian is to explore and identify these forces. We may cite Lenin as the man most known as the instigator of the second Russian Revolution (Bolsheviks overthrow Provisional Govt in 1917 and Lenin assumes power), and Tolstoy is right in his stressing the important of the other multitude of forces that culminates and catalyzes a given historical event, but his criticism of historians is largely unfounded because they do just that.
*During the Cold War, the USSR and the USA armed competing third- and second-world countries such as Israel & Palestine, Pakistan & Afghanistan who seemed to adopt their respective ideologies in order to gain influence in that region (relating to USA's fear of the spread of Communism). This is when many governments that exist there today were set up, and often in pictures of African soldiers, they are using our arms because we gave them those guns to fight our conflicts against the Soviet Union.
Count Leo Tolstoy argues in War & Peace (which I am almost finished with) that historians only attribute a movement to the actions of one man instead of all the forces that lead to it and make it inevitable, and while Count Tolstoy is remarkably intelligent, he misses the fact that the job of the historian is to explore and identify these forces. We may cite Lenin as the man most known as the instigator of the second Russian Revolution (Bolsheviks overthrow Provisional Govt in 1917 and Lenin assumes power), and Tolstoy is right in his stressing the important of the other multitude of forces that culminates and catalyzes a given historical event, but his criticism of historians is largely unfounded because they do just that.
*During the Cold War, the USSR and the USA armed competing third- and second-world countries such as Israel & Palestine, Pakistan & Afghanistan who seemed to adopt their respective ideologies in order to gain influence in that region (relating to USA's fear of the spread of Communism). This is when many governments that exist there today were set up, and often in pictures of African soldiers, they are using our arms because we gave them those guns to fight our conflicts against the Soviet Union.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Jesus who?
Is Jesus really a legitimate philosopher? Judging by the case of famous author Ayn Rand, whose case is strikingly similar, I have the audacity to say no.
Ayn Rand claimed to be a renegade individualist, championing the individual over society, etc, and after a while, as her fame grew, she and her top ideological subordinates formed organizations that encouraged conformity to a non-conformist philosophy. Make sense? I didn't think so.
Jesus really was self-interested, more than Ayn Rand. "Believe in me and you will have eternal life, blah blah blah, Those who do not believe in me shall perish" (Revelations). Besides curing a few people, reforming the Jewish heirarchy, and talking about how great he was, he didnt do much until he was nailed to a post. According to recently-found written documents, Jesus told Judas to betray him. Jesus the master mythmaker? Could it be that the world-famous toga man from Bethlehem wanted the world over to believe in him forever, and completely fabricated the foresight? ("One of you here has betrayed me...tomorrow they come to arrest me.") Could this also imply that Peter was also told to deny him 3 times?
It's very well possible that Jesus was a fraud, much like, ironically, many who believe in him.
Ayn Rand claimed to be a renegade individualist, championing the individual over society, etc, and after a while, as her fame grew, she and her top ideological subordinates formed organizations that encouraged conformity to a non-conformist philosophy. Make sense? I didn't think so.
Jesus really was self-interested, more than Ayn Rand. "Believe in me and you will have eternal life, blah blah blah, Those who do not believe in me shall perish" (Revelations). Besides curing a few people, reforming the Jewish heirarchy, and talking about how great he was, he didnt do much until he was nailed to a post. According to recently-found written documents, Jesus told Judas to betray him. Jesus the master mythmaker? Could it be that the world-famous toga man from Bethlehem wanted the world over to believe in him forever, and completely fabricated the foresight? ("One of you here has betrayed me...tomorrow they come to arrest me.") Could this also imply that Peter was also told to deny him 3 times?
It's very well possible that Jesus was a fraud, much like, ironically, many who believe in him.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Curious George and the Stem Cell Veto
Still, it seems, no matter how promising the situation seems (as neutered, unreliable, and confidence-less as our incompetent Tsar is), we cannot get things done. Curious George vetoed a stem-cell bill today, proving once again that we are still stifled by Christianity as a 1,000-hp diesel truck with a boulder chained to it is stifled on the Autobahn.
The Republican party also took another major blow yesterday: One of its most intelligent members (it's not hard to achieve that in the party these days), Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, defected to an independent position. Bloomberg, also happened to be a major thoughtcriminal within the party - pro-choice, pro-environment. Many are speculating the possibility that he might run for President, but I'm more interested in ideological scruples.
I can only speculate, much like anyone else, but the dissatisfaction amongst voters, and, much more probably, the combination of utter hubris, arrogance, incompetence, sycophancy, and rampant corruption, could have left Mr Bloomberg utterly disgusted. Mr Bloomberg, in any case, I congradulate you in your individualist decision, demonstrating yourself to not be bound to party allegiance or ideology.
The Republican party also took another major blow yesterday: One of its most intelligent members (it's not hard to achieve that in the party these days), Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC, defected to an independent position. Bloomberg, also happened to be a major thoughtcriminal within the party - pro-choice, pro-environment. Many are speculating the possibility that he might run for President, but I'm more interested in ideological scruples.
I can only speculate, much like anyone else, but the dissatisfaction amongst voters, and, much more probably, the combination of utter hubris, arrogance, incompetence, sycophancy, and rampant corruption, could have left Mr Bloomberg utterly disgusted. Mr Bloomberg, in any case, I congradulate you in your individualist decision, demonstrating yourself to not be bound to party allegiance or ideology.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Kudos to the Queen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6756149.stm
Mr, no, Sir, Salman Rushdie has been knighted by the British Queen. Someone is thinking straight!
It is not often an American gets a pleasant surprise (we get surprises, but often are they unpleasant).
This is the most poignant and powerful blow to religious tyranny in recent history. I have recently finished The Satanic Verses, and Ayatollah Khomeini and his lockstep, robotic, lemmings do and did have cause for offense. Coupled with the Danish cartoon scandal, The Satanic Verses puts Islam down into its place. "Mahound / Moehammered" was self-serving, as was Jesus, and he was also a conqueror.
I have a picture on my computer of a man holding a poster, and on the poster is "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT." I suppose we should first start with Muhammed?
This, Queen Elizabeth II, is the first intelligent political move in six years. I congradulate you on your intellectual capacity, and I also congradulate Sir Rushdie.
Mr, no, Sir, Salman Rushdie has been knighted by the British Queen. Someone is thinking straight!
It is not often an American gets a pleasant surprise (we get surprises, but often are they unpleasant).
This is the most poignant and powerful blow to religious tyranny in recent history. I have recently finished The Satanic Verses, and Ayatollah Khomeini and his lockstep, robotic, lemmings do and did have cause for offense. Coupled with the Danish cartoon scandal, The Satanic Verses puts Islam down into its place. "Mahound / Moehammered" was self-serving, as was Jesus, and he was also a conqueror.
I have a picture on my computer of a man holding a poster, and on the poster is "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT." I suppose we should first start with Muhammed?
This, Queen Elizabeth II, is the first intelligent political move in six years. I congradulate you on your intellectual capacity, and I also congradulate Sir Rushdie.
Monday, June 11, 2007
What if Mr Gore Ran for President?
And, my mother's question, "Who are the remaining 30-odd percent that think Bush is doing a good job?"
The anwer to her question is remarkably easy: the same 30% that believe that the hundred billion or so species of creatures on the planet lived within walking distance of Noah's house, that the immense resources and deforestation required to build such a vessel to house those 200-billion animals (male and female) existed, that Noah knew in the first place how to build boats, and that the boat wouldn't capsize under such pressure, and either that Adam and Eve rode domesticated dinosaurs to church, and that God is lying to us by putting giant bones in the earth and giant reptilian skulls with teeth nearly the size of human heads. Under their perverse form of reasoning, Bush is creating a good, Christian society and laying the foundation for The Handmaid's Tale to become a reality. These 30% also believe that God/Jesus/Mahound will magically restore anew whatever damage, no matter how catastrophic or extensive, done to the only planet we have.
Keep this in mind for my first query.
So, if Al Gore ran for president, and provided people have wizened up to their catastrophic mistake, given the percent of people who voted in 2004, rounghly 30% or so voted for Bush. Who were these 30%? Look above. Now, for the remaining 68-70% (I'm sure they'll jump in after what their neutrality has done), the minute Al Gore announces his candidacy, the race is basically sealed in his favor, even if the D-3 keep fighting (Democratic 3: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) it out. The conservatives, however, would have not a chance in the hell they created. The remaining 30-32% who would be manipulated against Mr Gore (for questionable motives), would basically have full reign over the Red primary election, and it might just be Mr Brownbottom. No matter.
What would Gore have to do? Nothing: Go all in and sit back and watch them fold. He has an Oscar award (name one person who hasn't heard of An Inconvenient Truth) and a new book out, which I just bought today.
No more Christian BS. No more nation-building. No more manipulating scientific reports. No more sycophants in high positions. Mr Gore, we need you.
The anwer to her question is remarkably easy: the same 30% that believe that the hundred billion or so species of creatures on the planet lived within walking distance of Noah's house, that the immense resources and deforestation required to build such a vessel to house those 200-billion animals (male and female) existed, that Noah knew in the first place how to build boats, and that the boat wouldn't capsize under such pressure, and either that Adam and Eve rode domesticated dinosaurs to church, and that God is lying to us by putting giant bones in the earth and giant reptilian skulls with teeth nearly the size of human heads. Under their perverse form of reasoning, Bush is creating a good, Christian society and laying the foundation for The Handmaid's Tale to become a reality. These 30% also believe that God/Jesus/Mahound will magically restore anew whatever damage, no matter how catastrophic or extensive, done to the only planet we have.
Keep this in mind for my first query.
So, if Al Gore ran for president, and provided people have wizened up to their catastrophic mistake, given the percent of people who voted in 2004, rounghly 30% or so voted for Bush. Who were these 30%? Look above. Now, for the remaining 68-70% (I'm sure they'll jump in after what their neutrality has done), the minute Al Gore announces his candidacy, the race is basically sealed in his favor, even if the D-3 keep fighting (Democratic 3: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) it out. The conservatives, however, would have not a chance in the hell they created. The remaining 30-32% who would be manipulated against Mr Gore (for questionable motives), would basically have full reign over the Red primary election, and it might just be Mr Brownbottom. No matter.
What would Gore have to do? Nothing: Go all in and sit back and watch them fold. He has an Oscar award (name one person who hasn't heard of An Inconvenient Truth) and a new book out, which I just bought today.
No more Christian BS. No more nation-building. No more manipulating scientific reports. No more sycophants in high positions. Mr Gore, we need you.
Friday, June 8, 2007
No One Ever Said that the Third Reich was Committed to Human Rights
But nearly everyone said America was. It was what our Constitution was based upon. And, ironically, what do we have to say for it? The list goes on, but I'll divulge anyway: Slavery, several unjust, and horrifically destructive, imperialist wars, our own labor camp program in WW2 against Japanese-Americans, cultural suppression of women, and, recently, an answer to the Soviet Union's gulags in Siberia, a grassroots Hitler-Youth-esque Pentecostal children's camp, and an answer to the Soviet Union's gulags in Siberia. That's right, an American Gulag, named Guantanamo Bay. Even more ironic is that its located within a Communist country. The Russians at least had it in their own land.
Even if, in practice, we aren't yet as bad as Jong Il, Saddam, Khomeini, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, etc, the fact that we said we were the "liberators" and pro-human rights makes all the difference. America the Great Hypocrite. Nicholas Kristof in the NYTimes wrote about how he attempts to rail human rights practices in China only to be met with scoffs and accusations of hypocrisy. And you know what? They're right. Thanks to Curious George and his villainous circle, we, as a nation, as "world police," as a past President once called us, have absolutely no credibility in this regard whatsoever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did we blow off Angela Merkel's carbon emmisions proposal? Who's decision was it to do this? I'm almost speechless, the words remaining are obsceneties; I am dumbfounded at the utter incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance that our country displayed leading up to the G-8 conference. Even funnier, perhaps, is that the Egg House had to change its mind and Curious George was somehow pursueded to come up with emmissions goals of his own! I am of the opinion that only catastrophes have the power to change human minds; Bush must have gotten a nice slap in the face by someone in his dark circle.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't even want to talk about the latest Repiglican debate. I'm absolutely disgusted. There's a book coming out soon by a Science Columnist in the New York Times about why democracies make bad decisions. The question is, will they do it again?
"I pledge allegiance
To the Christian Flag
And to the Saviour,
For whose Kingdom it stands.
One Saviour, crucified, risen and coming again,
With life and liberty for all who believe."
I don't have much confidence.
------------------------------
I think I know how to fix this country. As a model, I cite the Articles of Confederation. To start, I think the federal government should be less than minimal, its only function would be to resolve disputes between states and the production of national currency. States would be almost completely independent, much like a tiny EU, with freedom to rule as liberally or conservatively as they wish. There would be no federal military institution, and it would be illegal for any state to possess anything more than the police forces we have now, and illegal to use those forces as paramilitary units. War would thus be impossible. Of course we would have very little role in international affairs, but after Iraq, could we afford to? I see this model as a way to provide the most people with the most freedom. Other states could follow suit after a good idea gestates in another, or conversely, other states could resist a more oppressive measure passed in another.
While being somewhat idealistic, and not without flaws, with some examination and tweaking by political scientists, I think my proposal could be quite useful. But now I'm just tooting my own horn, so to speak. I apologize.
Even if, in practice, we aren't yet as bad as Jong Il, Saddam, Khomeini, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, etc, the fact that we said we were the "liberators" and pro-human rights makes all the difference. America the Great Hypocrite. Nicholas Kristof in the NYTimes wrote about how he attempts to rail human rights practices in China only to be met with scoffs and accusations of hypocrisy. And you know what? They're right. Thanks to Curious George and his villainous circle, we, as a nation, as "world police," as a past President once called us, have absolutely no credibility in this regard whatsoever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did we blow off Angela Merkel's carbon emmisions proposal? Who's decision was it to do this? I'm almost speechless, the words remaining are obsceneties; I am dumbfounded at the utter incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance that our country displayed leading up to the G-8 conference. Even funnier, perhaps, is that the Egg House had to change its mind and Curious George was somehow pursueded to come up with emmissions goals of his own! I am of the opinion that only catastrophes have the power to change human minds; Bush must have gotten a nice slap in the face by someone in his dark circle.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't even want to talk about the latest Repiglican debate. I'm absolutely disgusted. There's a book coming out soon by a Science Columnist in the New York Times about why democracies make bad decisions. The question is, will they do it again?
"I pledge allegiance
To the Christian Flag
And to the Saviour,
For whose Kingdom it stands.
One Saviour, crucified, risen and coming again,
With life and liberty for all who believe."
I don't have much confidence.
------------------------------
I think I know how to fix this country. As a model, I cite the Articles of Confederation. To start, I think the federal government should be less than minimal, its only function would be to resolve disputes between states and the production of national currency. States would be almost completely independent, much like a tiny EU, with freedom to rule as liberally or conservatively as they wish. There would be no federal military institution, and it would be illegal for any state to possess anything more than the police forces we have now, and illegal to use those forces as paramilitary units. War would thus be impossible. Of course we would have very little role in international affairs, but after Iraq, could we afford to? I see this model as a way to provide the most people with the most freedom. Other states could follow suit after a good idea gestates in another, or conversely, other states could resist a more oppressive measure passed in another.
While being somewhat idealistic, and not without flaws, with some examination and tweaking by political scientists, I think my proposal could be quite useful. But now I'm just tooting my own horn, so to speak. I apologize.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
If Al Gore Ran Again....
...It would be over for every other candidate. Mr Gore would not even have to campaign, and money would flow to him like a river towards the ocean. Why? Al Gore has displayed the ability to speak directly of what he means and wants without euphemisms, he is extremely intelligent, he is a rational thinker, and he knows what he is talking about. Sometimes we joke that we should just give him the presidency because he technically won it in 2000. With his books and movie (book version of An Inconvenient Truth and his new Assault on Reason), his mesage is already out there. He's the only candidate to throw away congeniality and say what he really thinks. Thats what I want. Forget pandering to a far-right/far-left base of charlatans, say what you really think. No political expediency here. This is where the Republicans are most trapped. They have to sound evil and backwards to appeal to evil because evil will not vote for people who want progress. Evil aside, the other 60% of the population would vote for Gore. And he has the Republican mess to capitalize on, the transition from a dunce to a brilliant man.
Run, Gore, Run.
Run, Gore, Run.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Creation Museum
I've known about this for a while now, but it just opened. Oh boy. The only place where psychotics can say that, to quote SNL, "Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church" without being ridiculed. They expect, according to the New York Times, 250,000 visitors in the first year, one fourth of the amount of minions Pat Robertson claims he has.
One of the final strongholds of legitimized fantasy. To those of us who buy Charles Darwin (I have both The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man), this is an amazing thing. What they really seek to do is not simply to "challenge" Darwinism, but to undermine the integrity of the scientific process. Think about it, if one could get a man in a white coat to say anything, and for people to believe him, then he has power. James Dobson isn't a legitimate psychologist, but people believe what he says. Or the televangelists of the 80s-present? They completely obliterated Christianity.
They believe that if they can undermine intellectual integrity, they can replace them with their own fantasies and establish them as legitimate (all challenges to legitimacy would be obliterated). Part of the strategy is to have bills passed or shot down, extensive special interest lobbying, and defaming books and authors that express conflicting views with outrageous or ad homenim claims, similar to the Scientology strategy.
The Creation Museum needs to be swiftly attacked and debunked by the intellectual community.
One of the final strongholds of legitimized fantasy. To those of us who buy Charles Darwin (I have both The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man), this is an amazing thing. What they really seek to do is not simply to "challenge" Darwinism, but to undermine the integrity of the scientific process. Think about it, if one could get a man in a white coat to say anything, and for people to believe him, then he has power. James Dobson isn't a legitimate psychologist, but people believe what he says. Or the televangelists of the 80s-present? They completely obliterated Christianity.
They believe that if they can undermine intellectual integrity, they can replace them with their own fantasies and establish them as legitimate (all challenges to legitimacy would be obliterated). Part of the strategy is to have bills passed or shot down, extensive special interest lobbying, and defaming books and authors that express conflicting views with outrageous or ad homenim claims, similar to the Scientology strategy.
The Creation Museum needs to be swiftly attacked and debunked by the intellectual community.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Reality of Making Movies
My friend's friend and I discussed the possibility of the new reality TV show of making movies.
The show's producers, before we begin, have a choice: They can pick either the next George Lucas (whose student film THX-1138 EB was expanded into his first major film and also won the USC's student film competition that year), or they could pick just a few hot guys and girls without any aspirations or even ideas.
The show, obviously, could either be really cool, or could really, really suck. Unfortunately, there already is kind of a show like that, without the "reality" bullshit. It's on VH1 late at night and its called Acceptable TV. People actually make 2-minute shorts and five are picked each show. I dont care how its made, how uncooperative people are, just show me the final products (its Fox, so there has to be at least 3 spoiled rich crybabies).
Thirty years ago, Star Wars Episode IV was made. Well, why isn't THX-1138 celebrated? I would call it Star Wars' predecessor, and because it isn't as (nearly as) well-known as Star Wars, I think it deserves wider public attention. And people, if they actually get it, might appreciate it.
I also think that the Lord of the Rings/Star Wars "debate" is silly. They are both excellent movies. The question is merely preference: Do you like intergalactic starfighter battles with dystopian and heroic themes? Or do you like fantastic realms and magic, and heroic themes? So geeks across the world, put down your dwarf hammers and lightsabers, and get along.
The show's producers, before we begin, have a choice: They can pick either the next George Lucas (whose student film THX-1138 EB was expanded into his first major film and also won the USC's student film competition that year), or they could pick just a few hot guys and girls without any aspirations or even ideas.
The show, obviously, could either be really cool, or could really, really suck. Unfortunately, there already is kind of a show like that, without the "reality" bullshit. It's on VH1 late at night and its called Acceptable TV. People actually make 2-minute shorts and five are picked each show. I dont care how its made, how uncooperative people are, just show me the final products (its Fox, so there has to be at least 3 spoiled rich crybabies).
Thirty years ago, Star Wars Episode IV was made. Well, why isn't THX-1138 celebrated? I would call it Star Wars' predecessor, and because it isn't as (nearly as) well-known as Star Wars, I think it deserves wider public attention. And people, if they actually get it, might appreciate it.
I also think that the Lord of the Rings/Star Wars "debate" is silly. They are both excellent movies. The question is merely preference: Do you like intergalactic starfighter battles with dystopian and heroic themes? Or do you like fantastic realms and magic, and heroic themes? So geeks across the world, put down your dwarf hammers and lightsabers, and get along.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Foreign movies
Recently, I've been escaping to foreign films. Most movies that come out under American studios are not at all imaginative, and are merely "fun" movies. You shut your brain off, you are presented with material to soothe your libido and thanatos for two hours and you go home. You don't learn anything new nor are you inspired.
I started watching Japanese horror movies (first was Audition), then I moved to other countries with the Tim Burton-esque City of Lost Children, and District B13. Then came Pan's Labyrinth. I really can't talk about this movie because it fills me with awe and inspiration every time I think about it. Why can't we do that? Because most of our movies start with "Based on the best-selling novel by -----" or "the hit video game -----" And why is that? There hasn't been an original idea in Hollywood sincethe mid 1990s, I think (the last original movie I remember was THX-1138, in 1971, and I'm trying to be reasonable). Other countries have taken it upon themselves to do what we should be doing, because American directors, who could have a good, completely original idea will not get the funds because it might not appeal to a wide audience. Mr Del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth, directed Hellboy and Blade II before he unleashed upon the world his brilliance. It must be that after making a ton of money with second-rate comic book movies, our directors still don't have an original idea in their mashed potato brains or we would have heard of it by now. They continue to try to convert other people's ideas from one medium to another, mutilating them beyond recognition in the process (I'm talking about a film version of the 1000-page novel, Atlas Shrugged and a proposed American film version of my favorite anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion). I would expect someone like Peter Jackson, who has directed many movies based upon others ideas, to finally make his own movie. But instead he's making a Halo movie, which is a complete waste of time because we'd all rather spend the two hours watching Master Chief kick Covenant/Flood ass, actually doing it ourselves.
This post is inspired by someone from the New York Times commenting on renowned anime director, Satoshi Kon's latest work, that Japanese directors are reaching for the moon while "American directors are still in the kiddie sandbox" and I took it upon myself to try to figure out why.
I started watching Japanese horror movies (first was Audition), then I moved to other countries with the Tim Burton-esque City of Lost Children, and District B13. Then came Pan's Labyrinth. I really can't talk about this movie because it fills me with awe and inspiration every time I think about it. Why can't we do that? Because most of our movies start with "Based on the best-selling novel by -----" or "the hit video game -----" And why is that? There hasn't been an original idea in Hollywood sincethe mid 1990s, I think (the last original movie I remember was THX-1138, in 1971, and I'm trying to be reasonable). Other countries have taken it upon themselves to do what we should be doing, because American directors, who could have a good, completely original idea will not get the funds because it might not appeal to a wide audience. Mr Del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth, directed Hellboy and Blade II before he unleashed upon the world his brilliance. It must be that after making a ton of money with second-rate comic book movies, our directors still don't have an original idea in their mashed potato brains or we would have heard of it by now. They continue to try to convert other people's ideas from one medium to another, mutilating them beyond recognition in the process (I'm talking about a film version of the 1000-page novel, Atlas Shrugged and a proposed American film version of my favorite anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion). I would expect someone like Peter Jackson, who has directed many movies based upon others ideas, to finally make his own movie. But instead he's making a Halo movie, which is a complete waste of time because we'd all rather spend the two hours watching Master Chief kick Covenant/Flood ass, actually doing it ourselves.
This post is inspired by someone from the New York Times commenting on renowned anime director, Satoshi Kon's latest work, that Japanese directors are reaching for the moon while "American directors are still in the kiddie sandbox" and I took it upon myself to try to figure out why.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A Villain Hath Fallen
A villain has died today, one of those responsible for the decline of a great nation. An angry and hateful man has left the earth and can do no more harm. This villain is none other than Jerry Falwell, one of the first Christian fascists to open his mouth at the start of Tsar Bush II's term. On September 13th 2001, he, and his good friend Marion ("Pat") Robertson blamed the events of two days prior on innocent and free people, saying it was freedom that made God angry at us, and allowed the Islamists to kill 3,000 people. Ironically, he was not sniped for anti-Americanism, as he is a member and a kingmaker in the dominant party.
It upsets me that this monster of a man gets more attention than Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. A hatemongerer, a man who capitalized on the stupidity of mankind, a demagogue; that was Jerry Falwell. The rest of us, especially "moderate" Christians, should treat him the same way Soviet Russia treated the corpse of Stalin, by spitting on his grave.
He was not the first to fight against the rights of those different from himself; throughout history, anti-suffragists and those who were pro-slavery (with whom, ideologically, he was inherently and closely tied), have been fighting for the status quo, not caring one iota for the quality of life of those in question.
I, for one, have seen far too much of human stupidity and hate during his life that it is not necessary to celebrate him in death. In death one is not supposed to say anything less than positive, yet this one man has a record such that then we should not have said anything at all.
I write this in response to those who have lied over the past 12 hours, those who have painted a hero from a hatemongerer. In this respect, it is the Republican candidacy that appears most repugnant in its rewarding intolerance and hypocrisy. John McCain and Rudy Guliani should have known better. It is here that I should offer my condolences to the mother of Matthew Shepherd on behalf of those who allow Socrates' belief that all evil stems from ignorance to be true.
Jerry Falwell was disease to the Republican party, a malignant tumor in the nation, and a stain on the world. To all those he has wounded, I admire you.
It upsets me that this monster of a man gets more attention than Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand. A hatemongerer, a man who capitalized on the stupidity of mankind, a demagogue; that was Jerry Falwell. The rest of us, especially "moderate" Christians, should treat him the same way Soviet Russia treated the corpse of Stalin, by spitting on his grave.
He was not the first to fight against the rights of those different from himself; throughout history, anti-suffragists and those who were pro-slavery (with whom, ideologically, he was inherently and closely tied), have been fighting for the status quo, not caring one iota for the quality of life of those in question.
I, for one, have seen far too much of human stupidity and hate during his life that it is not necessary to celebrate him in death. In death one is not supposed to say anything less than positive, yet this one man has a record such that then we should not have said anything at all.
I write this in response to those who have lied over the past 12 hours, those who have painted a hero from a hatemongerer. In this respect, it is the Republican candidacy that appears most repugnant in its rewarding intolerance and hypocrisy. John McCain and Rudy Guliani should have known better. It is here that I should offer my condolences to the mother of Matthew Shepherd on behalf of those who allow Socrates' belief that all evil stems from ignorance to be true.
Jerry Falwell was disease to the Republican party, a malignant tumor in the nation, and a stain on the world. To all those he has wounded, I admire you.
And Now for Something Completely Different
That last post was inspired from a New York Times editorial on Sunday about the GOP candidates and the possibility of their defeat and I was feeling particularly cynical, so I wrote it as if one of them were speaking honestly and frankly.
And now, as my title states, for something different.
There are now three people that I admire, and one of them is actually alive, though I am not sure for how long, for he is an old man and has endured much.
The first is Charles Darwin for standing up to religious authorties (he was a pious man) when he found similiarities between the finches in the Galapagos. Since the beginning, those who have learned biology from schizophrenics (and those schizophrenics themselves) have tried to stop the spreading of his idea. Mr Darwin, I admire you for opening the way for science and "secularism" to overcome religious ignorance and tyranny. Psychologists are now studying the roots of morality and the evolution of the brain.
The second is a largely unknown Russian author by the name of Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of WE, who lived in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. He stayed true to his ideas and resisted the Bolshevik intrusion into the artistic and literary world, even as his colleagues, who were his friends previously, denounced and betrayed him. Strangely, Stalin himself granted Zamyatin permission to leave, and he settled where most authors have been known to go, Paris.
The third person is one I've recently learned of by the name of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [pronounced Sols-hen-eet-sin], also lived in Russia for nearly his entire life (and has returned as of 13 years ago). He spent time in a Stalinist Gulag and battled with cancer in the Soviet Union as well. Khruschev, Stalin's successor, used Solzhenitsyn for political gain with his novella, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which he won the Nobel Prize for, among other novels such as Cancer Ward and The First Circle. Unfortunately, he declined to receive it until five years afterwards, when the Soviet authorities exiled him. Some consider him to be a historian, John Keegan cites him in his book, The First World War, but in 1980, he expressed diappointment that most of the analyses of his work were political in nature, not focusing on their literary value. I wonder if this is still true?
And now, as my title states, for something different.
There are now three people that I admire, and one of them is actually alive, though I am not sure for how long, for he is an old man and has endured much.
The first is Charles Darwin for standing up to religious authorties (he was a pious man) when he found similiarities between the finches in the Galapagos. Since the beginning, those who have learned biology from schizophrenics (and those schizophrenics themselves) have tried to stop the spreading of his idea. Mr Darwin, I admire you for opening the way for science and "secularism" to overcome religious ignorance and tyranny. Psychologists are now studying the roots of morality and the evolution of the brain.
The second is a largely unknown Russian author by the name of Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of WE, who lived in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. He stayed true to his ideas and resisted the Bolshevik intrusion into the artistic and literary world, even as his colleagues, who were his friends previously, denounced and betrayed him. Strangely, Stalin himself granted Zamyatin permission to leave, and he settled where most authors have been known to go, Paris.
The third person is one I've recently learned of by the name of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn [pronounced Sols-hen-eet-sin], also lived in Russia for nearly his entire life (and has returned as of 13 years ago). He spent time in a Stalinist Gulag and battled with cancer in the Soviet Union as well. Khruschev, Stalin's successor, used Solzhenitsyn for political gain with his novella, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which he won the Nobel Prize for, among other novels such as Cancer Ward and The First Circle. Unfortunately, he declined to receive it until five years afterwards, when the Soviet authorities exiled him. Some consider him to be a historian, John Keegan cites him in his book, The First World War, but in 1980, he expressed diappointment that most of the analyses of his work were political in nature, not focusing on their literary value. I wonder if this is still true?
Monday, May 14, 2007
What is This?
The Republican Party lose the election? By a landslide? Where are all of their loyal slaves, are there not enough people signed up for Kids on Fire this year? Are Falwell's sheep defecting? What if Guliani wins the GOP nomination? (Heaven forbid! An anti-hypocrisy [see previous posts] right-wing candidate!) How could James Dobson not like the current GOP contenders? All but two are theocratic WASCs! And those have no domestic policy; they just keep ejaculating the same schpiel (spelling) on Iraq! I'm sure they would all be for ejecting Leslie Newman's children's books from public libraries, or be willing to burn them! Perfect!
And what ever happened to End-Times prophecy? Why this change of heart for Global Warming? Isn't that good? Jesus the Klansman is going to come and take them away after we set the world on fire and everyone else can suffer for all eternity. Since when did people care about Genesis over Revelations? Fundamentalists and cherrypicking! No! You know what Capital G says about that! What kind of example are you setting?
And what ever happened to End-Times prophecy? Why this change of heart for Global Warming? Isn't that good? Jesus the Klansman is going to come and take them away after we set the world on fire and everyone else can suffer for all eternity. Since when did people care about Genesis over Revelations? Fundamentalists and cherrypicking! No! You know what Capital G says about that! What kind of example are you setting?
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Dystopian Novel is Back!
The Dystopian genre, famous for such works as Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Handmaid's Tale, Oryx & Crake, Kallocain, We the Living, Atlas Shrugged, WE and many others, has returned, but in a different form. It has evolved somewhat. The two examples I cite are Cormac McCarthy's The Road and Jim Crace's The Pesthouse. These novels are not about deplorable living conditions, forced abstinance, or totalitarianism, but are about what happens when we set the world (or America, specifically) on fire. The Road follows a man and his ten-year-old (estimation) son on a journey to the east coast after some unknown disaster (nuclear fallout?), hoping for some remnant of civilization.
Jim Crace's novel, which I've read about in The New York Times (and the first page of the novel) and plan to get for my birthday, according to the reviewer, depicts a degredation of America (Crace is British, where a lot of Dystopian literature came from), where people, instead of moving west (Monroe Doctrine, Gold Rush, promise of land and livlihood), seem to have reaped what they have sown and now there is nothing left but pestilence, and they, again, move from the West to the East, wishing to return to the Fatherland (the father of America). Also, the reviewer pointed out that remnants of "traditional morality" still exist, and all science and history is lost.
I think of The Pesthouse, as according to the NYTimes reviewer, as being, in a sense, correct about America, especially after Tsar Bush II. I, for one, seek to leave the United States, a land of unrestrained greed and powerlust without regard to consequence, and cutthroat competition for the minds of human beings, a war so violent, few people hold their own ideas, or trust them.
Also of note is the new Nine Inch Nails album, Year Zero. Trent Reznor also tells a dystopian tale, but it is not of the recent trend of post-apocalyptic wastelands, rather it is of the urbanite totalitarianism of many other stories past. Year Zero tells a complete story, from what we are now ("Survivalism") to what Crace and McCarthy speak of in their novels ("In This Twilight", "Zero-Sum"), from revolution ("The Good Soldier") to thought-control and justification ("Vessel", "The Greater Good"). The final two songs of the album focuses on either the fulfilment of Christian prophecy or worldwide nuclear fallout. The entire album is focused on a Christian totalitarian theocracy in the United States under a Christian equivalent of Khomeini (the inside flap features a Bible on one side and a submachine gun on the other). While little of what Reznor says is original (it could be imagined by anyone with the ability to judge the future based on the past and present), he tells the story very well and completely.
Jim Crace's novel, which I've read about in The New York Times (and the first page of the novel) and plan to get for my birthday, according to the reviewer, depicts a degredation of America (Crace is British, where a lot of Dystopian literature came from), where people, instead of moving west (Monroe Doctrine, Gold Rush, promise of land and livlihood), seem to have reaped what they have sown and now there is nothing left but pestilence, and they, again, move from the West to the East, wishing to return to the Fatherland (the father of America). Also, the reviewer pointed out that remnants of "traditional morality" still exist, and all science and history is lost.
I think of The Pesthouse, as according to the NYTimes reviewer, as being, in a sense, correct about America, especially after Tsar Bush II. I, for one, seek to leave the United States, a land of unrestrained greed and powerlust without regard to consequence, and cutthroat competition for the minds of human beings, a war so violent, few people hold their own ideas, or trust them.
Also of note is the new Nine Inch Nails album, Year Zero. Trent Reznor also tells a dystopian tale, but it is not of the recent trend of post-apocalyptic wastelands, rather it is of the urbanite totalitarianism of many other stories past. Year Zero tells a complete story, from what we are now ("Survivalism") to what Crace and McCarthy speak of in their novels ("In This Twilight", "Zero-Sum"), from revolution ("The Good Soldier") to thought-control and justification ("Vessel", "The Greater Good"). The final two songs of the album focuses on either the fulfilment of Christian prophecy or worldwide nuclear fallout. The entire album is focused on a Christian totalitarian theocracy in the United States under a Christian equivalent of Khomeini (the inside flap features a Bible on one side and a submachine gun on the other). While little of what Reznor says is original (it could be imagined by anyone with the ability to judge the future based on the past and present), he tells the story very well and completely.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Theocracy, Lying to Kids, Tyranny, and Abortion
I saw the first 30-45 minutes of the GOP debates, and then I got bored and scared. The issues relevant to me were touched upon, and I did not like their positions at all. America is not a "faith-based experiment," as it was intended to keep government entirely free of what Lou Dobbs called "adventurists," but I call theocrats. And, Mr Brownback, Bush II did invite faith into the public sphere - and look what happened! Two Supreme Court Justices who were appointed specifically because of their 16th century views showed themselves to be entirely unqualified for the position, perhaps moreso than Bush's mistress, Harriet Meirs, after entirely bungling an abortion case because of religious misogyny. Congress intervened in a man's private life on behalf of a woman who had been comatose for 13 years. So he married soon after. He moved on during those 13 years because he knew that she would never recover and was basically dead. And lastly, the stupidity of "Intelligent Design," and the "legitimacy" of Becky Fischer's Hitler Youth-esque children's camp, Kids on Fire.
Around the country, in this era of Theoconservatism, parents have been vying for the power to lie, not only to their own kids, but to other people's kids as well. I'm talking about sexual education and Intelligent Design. If you want to screw up your own kids, fine, take them out of the public schools. But no parent should ever be given power over anyone else's kids unless specific consent is given and there is a relationship between the two families. I call what happened in Kansas and around the country tyranny.
Tyranny. The only difference between democracy and other forms of government is that the people get to pick which dictator they want to be enslaved by. Government, in this country, is only a mechanism by which one group of people can gain power over everyone else. It is a public institution utilized solely for private interests. From slavery to the Mexican War to WW1 to engagements during the Cold War to Iraq and the "War on Terror", this country has never been interested in "liberty for all" even once in its entire existence. I know why people hate this country. And their hate is mostly justified. We betray a thousand-fold the ideals that formed this country in the first place. We aren't the Great Satan, but we are the Great Hypocrite. Formed by conquest (Spanish imperialization), thus we conquer others.
Abortion. No longer should the Pro-Choice position be called "Pro-Choice." It should instead be called "Anti-Hypocrisy." The majority of pro-lifers in this country also support the War in Iraq. And war = death, the opposite of life. They also support Capital Punishment, which is also not life. And they are not up, either, on quality of life. I think (this is merely my hypothesis) that it is to support the Krieg Machina. No abortions leads to many abandoned children (build more indoctrinating centers! Make Kids on Fire a year-round educational facility), who will then be kicked out onto the streets at 18. Eighteen is also the legal age to join the military, and recruiting tactics have never been anywhere close to honest. Come on, pump up that theo-nationalism!
So who's pro-life again?
Around the country, in this era of Theoconservatism, parents have been vying for the power to lie, not only to their own kids, but to other people's kids as well. I'm talking about sexual education and Intelligent Design. If you want to screw up your own kids, fine, take them out of the public schools. But no parent should ever be given power over anyone else's kids unless specific consent is given and there is a relationship between the two families. I call what happened in Kansas and around the country tyranny.
Tyranny. The only difference between democracy and other forms of government is that the people get to pick which dictator they want to be enslaved by. Government, in this country, is only a mechanism by which one group of people can gain power over everyone else. It is a public institution utilized solely for private interests. From slavery to the Mexican War to WW1 to engagements during the Cold War to Iraq and the "War on Terror", this country has never been interested in "liberty for all" even once in its entire existence. I know why people hate this country. And their hate is mostly justified. We betray a thousand-fold the ideals that formed this country in the first place. We aren't the Great Satan, but we are the Great Hypocrite. Formed by conquest (Spanish imperialization), thus we conquer others.
Abortion. No longer should the Pro-Choice position be called "Pro-Choice." It should instead be called "Anti-Hypocrisy." The majority of pro-lifers in this country also support the War in Iraq. And war = death, the opposite of life. They also support Capital Punishment, which is also not life. And they are not up, either, on quality of life. I think (this is merely my hypothesis) that it is to support the Krieg Machina. No abortions leads to many abandoned children (build more indoctrinating centers! Make Kids on Fire a year-round educational facility), who will then be kicked out onto the streets at 18. Eighteen is also the legal age to join the military, and recruiting tactics have never been anywhere close to honest. Come on, pump up that theo-nationalism!
So who's pro-life again?
Monday, April 30, 2007
Contemporary Conservatism, Bush II's scandals
Let me start by saying that conservatism is not inherently megative. But contemporary conservatism, as it stands today, this very moment, is extremely detrimental to the integrity of the American political sphere. Cotemporary conservatism only succeeds at flaunting the fact that it out-lived its utility. Conservatives need to look back to their ideology's Civil-War era roots.
Case in point: John McCain. Mr McCain has a history of being a rational and individual face in a crowd of copies and schizophrenics. He was a favorite of the opposing party; not to make fun of, but of genuine respect. But this has changed, and I hope it is a change that is not permanent. Once a critic of political pandering to fringe groups and a muckraker into the cancer haunting the Republican party, the Non-Conformist, Rational Politician has fallen into the footsoldier parade. Two years ago he spoke to students at unLiberty University, founded by "agent of intolerance" Jerry Falwell. And this week, on an appearance on the Daily Show, he avoided questions no one else would even ask, such as the nature of Patriotism and what it means1.
Yesterday, David Brooks, an arch-conservative, wrote an editorial railing his party on this front2.
Something incredible has happened to swallow even John McCain. It is safe to say that organizing this Bolshevikian unthinking lockstepping has begun since the end of Reagan era.
Brooks states that they made Reagan into a simplistic myth, which I think is also what most Christians (moderates included) did to Jesus, and neither of them were simplistic. Mythification has great consequences.
On social policy, any shift in ideology on the front of private life (family, sex, etc) is met with swift and fierce opposition by Focus on the Family.
To oversimplify, the Republican Party has become merely the WASP/C-BB Party. [White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Catholic-Big-Business/Brother]
The Republican party has dehumanized itself and very much embodied Ayn Rand's novels (represented by Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, and James Taggart) reducing itself to a shapeless vague form, and John McCain's interview with Jon Stewart mentioned earlier is a perfect example of what I am saying.
Conservatism was traditionally pro-small-government, personal responsibility and minimum government spending. Under Bush II, I see none of those values or ideals.
While David Brooks and the Republicans I know recognize the Republican party for what it has become and now is, it will take a number of defeats and colossal failures (even at the expense of the public) for invertebrates to be broken and John McCain to return to his former self. Perhaps he might emerge as the most influential member of his party once he learns from this extremely costly experiment in group psychology.
--------------------------------------------------
Something terrible is happening. Let me write down the score:
-Lying about Iraq
-Valerie Plame ousting, Libby is a meat shield for Rove & Cheney
-Firing of Republican lawyers for "doing too good of a job" at prosecuting corrupt politicians3.
-Alberto Gonzales' short-term memory.
It seems a piece of the puzzle drops on our lap every few weeks. The aim is disturbingly clear. Thoreau's sentiment of democracy being used against the people is truth here. We have enough pieces of the puzzle to know what the picture is, but I don't think its complete. I cannot recall any other time in American history where a presidential administration have acted so deliberately against public interest and against the ideals for which this nation was intended to stand.
What we have yet to see is how many of this President's actions are irreparable.
-----------------------------------------
Works Cited:
1. Channel 13 around 6:00-7:00 EST: Bill Moyers Journal; Interview with Jon Stewart. on PBS
2. Brooks, David "Grim Old Party" New York Times. April 29 2007
3 Ibid; Bill Moyers speaks to professional independent bloggers on the Alberto Gonzales scandal.
Case in point: John McCain. Mr McCain has a history of being a rational and individual face in a crowd of copies and schizophrenics. He was a favorite of the opposing party; not to make fun of, but of genuine respect. But this has changed, and I hope it is a change that is not permanent. Once a critic of political pandering to fringe groups and a muckraker into the cancer haunting the Republican party, the Non-Conformist, Rational Politician has fallen into the footsoldier parade. Two years ago he spoke to students at unLiberty University, founded by "agent of intolerance" Jerry Falwell. And this week, on an appearance on the Daily Show, he avoided questions no one else would even ask, such as the nature of Patriotism and what it means1.
Yesterday, David Brooks, an arch-conservative, wrote an editorial railing his party on this front2.
Something incredible has happened to swallow even John McCain. It is safe to say that organizing this Bolshevikian unthinking lockstepping has begun since the end of Reagan era.
Brooks states that they made Reagan into a simplistic myth, which I think is also what most Christians (moderates included) did to Jesus, and neither of them were simplistic. Mythification has great consequences.
On social policy, any shift in ideology on the front of private life (family, sex, etc) is met with swift and fierce opposition by Focus on the Family.
To oversimplify, the Republican Party has become merely the WASP/C-BB Party. [White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Catholic-Big-Business/Brother]
The Republican party has dehumanized itself and very much embodied Ayn Rand's novels (represented by Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, and James Taggart) reducing itself to a shapeless vague form, and John McCain's interview with Jon Stewart mentioned earlier is a perfect example of what I am saying.
Conservatism was traditionally pro-small-government, personal responsibility and minimum government spending. Under Bush II, I see none of those values or ideals.
While David Brooks and the Republicans I know recognize the Republican party for what it has become and now is, it will take a number of defeats and colossal failures (even at the expense of the public) for invertebrates to be broken and John McCain to return to his former self. Perhaps he might emerge as the most influential member of his party once he learns from this extremely costly experiment in group psychology.
--------------------------------------------------
Something terrible is happening. Let me write down the score:
-Lying about Iraq
-Valerie Plame ousting, Libby is a meat shield for Rove & Cheney
-Firing of Republican lawyers for "doing too good of a job" at prosecuting corrupt politicians3.
-Alberto Gonzales' short-term memory.
It seems a piece of the puzzle drops on our lap every few weeks. The aim is disturbingly clear. Thoreau's sentiment of democracy being used against the people is truth here. We have enough pieces of the puzzle to know what the picture is, but I don't think its complete. I cannot recall any other time in American history where a presidential administration have acted so deliberately against public interest and against the ideals for which this nation was intended to stand.
What we have yet to see is how many of this President's actions are irreparable.
-----------------------------------------
Works Cited:
1. Channel 13 around 6:00-7:00 EST: Bill Moyers Journal; Interview with Jon Stewart. on PBS
2. Brooks, David "Grim Old Party" New York Times. April 29 2007
3 Ibid; Bill Moyers speaks to professional independent bloggers on the Alberto Gonzales scandal.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Don Imus
Bah. I have to admit I haven't heard him in a long while, and now this. Here is the heirarchy of hypocrisy:
Viacom owns CBS, MSNBC, and Record Producing companies.
CBS and MSNBC own Don Imus's show (or...did)
Record producers liscence Gangsta Rappers
Gangsta rappers flaunt misogyny, often in black culture
Don Imus borrows "Nappy-Headed Ho's" from Gangsta rap.
Blacks speak out against Don Imus while largely ignoring the plague within their own culture. The "N-Word" is a term of endearment among black youth. "Ho" or "shortie" is short for "whore"/"prostitute"/"call-girl"/etc, a very common description for black women by black men.
What Imus said was wrong, yes, but where exactly did he get it from? Black culture.
The really big question is: Why did it take Don Imus for blacks to realize that their culture is the biggest purveyor of blatant misogyny in the United States?
"Whites" cannot fix this problem. It's up to the black community. The status of rap as art is debatable. Hip-Hop apologists say that they write about what is "real." Perhaps the first few times it was real, it was reflective. But now, thanks to the quick rags-to-riches fix and tastelessness of record producers (what will sell over what is good) , it has becomes the fuel of the environment, the statement that poverty is "good."
Censorship will not solve this problem, it will only reinforce the oppression of blacks - only blacks upon themselves.
It's sad: They've only replaced the Sambo, Zip Coon, and Mammy with the Gangsta and Ho. They've taken it upon themselves to provide their own degredation in the media. But it doesn't have to be this way. There are positive images of blacks in the media (Crash). What I hope for, what people who are concerned should hope for, is a Second Harlem Reniassance. I hope, however, that it does not simply fuel current stereotypes. Things can be better, but only if those involved want them to.
Viacom owns CBS, MSNBC, and Record Producing companies.
CBS and MSNBC own Don Imus's show (or...did)
Record producers liscence Gangsta Rappers
Gangsta rappers flaunt misogyny, often in black culture
Don Imus borrows "Nappy-Headed Ho's" from Gangsta rap.
Blacks speak out against Don Imus while largely ignoring the plague within their own culture. The "N-Word" is a term of endearment among black youth. "Ho" or "shortie" is short for "whore"/"prostitute"/"call-girl"/etc, a very common description for black women by black men.
What Imus said was wrong, yes, but where exactly did he get it from? Black culture.
The really big question is: Why did it take Don Imus for blacks to realize that their culture is the biggest purveyor of blatant misogyny in the United States?
"Whites" cannot fix this problem. It's up to the black community. The status of rap as art is debatable. Hip-Hop apologists say that they write about what is "real." Perhaps the first few times it was real, it was reflective. But now, thanks to the quick rags-to-riches fix and tastelessness of record producers (what will sell over what is good) , it has becomes the fuel of the environment, the statement that poverty is "good."
Censorship will not solve this problem, it will only reinforce the oppression of blacks - only blacks upon themselves.
It's sad: They've only replaced the Sambo, Zip Coon, and Mammy with the Gangsta and Ho. They've taken it upon themselves to provide their own degredation in the media. But it doesn't have to be this way. There are positive images of blacks in the media (Crash). What I hope for, what people who are concerned should hope for, is a Second Harlem Reniassance. I hope, however, that it does not simply fuel current stereotypes. Things can be better, but only if those involved want them to.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Revolutionary!?
Me, a revolutionary!? Yes, my mom believes that I'm a revolutionary, that I want to overthrow the gov't and all that. But the truth is, I liked this country during the Clinton Years. If you want to talk about revolutionaries, talk about Jesus Camp and Borat, when the Chief Justic of the Alabama Superior Court and the director of the rodeo are blatantly theocratic. According to some people, my aunt's boyfriend's Catholic brother and an online friend, the Jesus Camp brainwashing routine has always happened, only in smaller sects and on the fringe, out of public sight. It's only thanks to the last 4 presidents (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Tsar Nikolay Bush II; Clinton because his delicious sex scandal and the CR's 'restore integrity to the Oval Office' crap [though who has integrity now! I wish it were a sex scandal!]) that these "fringe" dwellers and underground Bolsheviks burrowed out to gain control. On three channels (including CNN!), programs are running on what used to be considered fringe beliefs: Falwell is on CNN, Faux is talking about the resurrection, and History has recently begun giving credence to End-Times fanatics and ran a lengthy series of "investigations" pertaining to The DaVinci Code. Oh joy.
I want what Thomas Jefferson wanted, though hold the hypocrisy. I would like it if America was an international intellectual melting pot, where thinkers from all around the world would convene in one place, where...ahh what the hell? In reality, the lowest sewer-dwelling reptiles in the heirarchy of anti-intellectualism, like Ann Coulter and James Dobson, weild their Becky Fischer-trained child-footsoldiers against something that they truthfully know NOTHING about.
My mother believed that the kids in Jesus Camp and others like them would recover soon after exposure to the almighty Huxleyan Glass Teat, that "they will rebel when they find out," but was explained by the Catholic mentioned earlier that "few people ever recover" from early-age indoctrination. Such activities have always happened, yes: In places like Nazi Germany. Who would have ever thought in America, the Land of the Free, etc?
The problem is, as the Bolsheviks put it, "politically conscious"1. It wouldn't be so frightening if the Jesus kids never learned of the democratic system, which their instructors hate with so much Christian Passion. Lauren Sandler, who wrote books recently on Jesus Youth Movement, said in an ABC interview that Kids on Fire and its brothers are going to have "a negative impact on the country's future"2. Music to the Republican party's ears, a haunting requiem for a country that was so great and the citizens whose lifestyles will be tossed into the bonfires alongside the Constitution.
And we know what is going to happen, it's a convention and formula. Revolutionaries taste power, power corrupts and those in possession of it act hastily for the infinite expansion of the power they hold at the wanton expense of the residents.
I think that the political Christians are most similar to the Bolsheviks, perhaps not so much in their ideology (though the Proletariat was undereducated as well), but in their behavior and methodology.
They were ruffians, blatant hypocrites who merely wanted to change the class system upside-down. After Lenin and Trotsky, the proletarian "intellectuals" were about as intelligent as average 8th graders. They essentially lowered their standards of intellectualism, if not did away with them. Their intellectuals, save Lenin and Trotsky, were merely drilled with slogans and sayings, not what they meant or how to achieve them. They were very fiery and, when power was within sight and competition with other socialist factions grew fierce, the Bolsheviks resorted to terrorist tactics. Boris Pasternak wrote in Dr Zhivago, "The war [WW1] had killed off the flower of Russian manhood, now there was nothing but rotten, good-for-nothing rubbish left...And Russia, too, was a manageable girl in those days, courted by real men, men who would stand up for her, not to be compared with this rabble nowadays"3.
In the 90s, we had abortion clinic bombings that the government did not pay attention to, acts which the government has forgotten, partly because those bombers are indirectly in power! The RW Christians are less intelligent than 8th graders, not because they are "born with it," but because intellectual capacity is not stressed, and merely repeat those same types of slogans and the same arguments that their parents and teachers and leaders spoonfeed to them. And what is to happen if they gain power? We have a model for that, too: 1970s Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini.
The RW Christians seek not to overthrow the bourgeosie, but to overthrow the intellectual "elite" that has "oppressed" them. In truth, they are not oppressed, they are not hunted down with dogs and jailed, etc. They are actually quite allowed to do what they do. The problem becomes (as it is a problem now) that they seek to unravel our fragile democracy in place of their Old Testament government, and tyrannize (as expressed in Borat and Jesus Camp) over what they believe to be evil: The very freedom for individuals to live as they please so long as they affect no one else.
The irony: Many theologians, Muslim and Christian, believe that "Allah" and "God" are the same entity. The "Allah" that flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon and beheads journalists and blows up innocent people is the very same "God" that America turned to so willingly en masse. Its very funny, pleading to your oppressor as you would a benefactor. However, the RW Christian belief that God is punishing America is valid under this premise: Under Islamic law, women have no rights. In America, women have many rights. Under Islamic law, women's sexual deviance is punishable by death. Our law is, realitve to Islamic law, indifferent to sexual activity. In Islamic nations, homosexuals are immediately detroyed. In America, they are allowed to live but are still relatively oppressed. See the connection? God disdains minority freedom.
The catch is that one would have to take parts of the New Testament, as well as small sections of the Old Testament completely out. Jesus is an escape clause. Being that only 22% of RW Christians have actually read the Bible, this isn't a big issue for them4.
Works Cited:
1. Pasternak, Boris. Dr Zhivago. Wm Collins & Sons. London. C. 1958: Boris Pasternak lived in Soviet Russia from before the Revolution and his novel seeks to be as realistic as possible. The rest of the paragraph is not taken from the novel, just that quotation. Also of note is a review of
A Study of Bolshevism: Author of review: David G. Smith in The Journal of Politics © 1955 Southern Political Science Association found at http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976494/97p0596n/0?frame=noframe&userID=9597ce5e@wpuni.edu/01cce4406500501bc3993&dpi=3&config=jstor
2. Harris, Dan. Film Shows Youth Training to Fight for Jesus. ABC News. September 17, 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2455343&page=2
3. Ibid. p. 310
4. Altemeyer, Bob. The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba. C. 2/26/07. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
I want what Thomas Jefferson wanted, though hold the hypocrisy. I would like it if America was an international intellectual melting pot, where thinkers from all around the world would convene in one place, where...ahh what the hell? In reality, the lowest sewer-dwelling reptiles in the heirarchy of anti-intellectualism, like Ann Coulter and James Dobson, weild their Becky Fischer-trained child-footsoldiers against something that they truthfully know NOTHING about.
My mother believed that the kids in Jesus Camp and others like them would recover soon after exposure to the almighty Huxleyan Glass Teat, that "they will rebel when they find out," but was explained by the Catholic mentioned earlier that "few people ever recover" from early-age indoctrination. Such activities have always happened, yes: In places like Nazi Germany. Who would have ever thought in America, the Land of the Free, etc?
The problem is, as the Bolsheviks put it, "politically conscious"1. It wouldn't be so frightening if the Jesus kids never learned of the democratic system, which their instructors hate with so much Christian Passion. Lauren Sandler, who wrote books recently on Jesus Youth Movement, said in an ABC interview that Kids on Fire and its brothers are going to have "a negative impact on the country's future"2. Music to the Republican party's ears, a haunting requiem for a country that was so great and the citizens whose lifestyles will be tossed into the bonfires alongside the Constitution.
And we know what is going to happen, it's a convention and formula. Revolutionaries taste power, power corrupts and those in possession of it act hastily for the infinite expansion of the power they hold at the wanton expense of the residents.
I think that the political Christians are most similar to the Bolsheviks, perhaps not so much in their ideology (though the Proletariat was undereducated as well), but in their behavior and methodology.
They were ruffians, blatant hypocrites who merely wanted to change the class system upside-down. After Lenin and Trotsky, the proletarian "intellectuals" were about as intelligent as average 8th graders. They essentially lowered their standards of intellectualism, if not did away with them. Their intellectuals, save Lenin and Trotsky, were merely drilled with slogans and sayings, not what they meant or how to achieve them. They were very fiery and, when power was within sight and competition with other socialist factions grew fierce, the Bolsheviks resorted to terrorist tactics. Boris Pasternak wrote in Dr Zhivago, "The war [WW1] had killed off the flower of Russian manhood, now there was nothing but rotten, good-for-nothing rubbish left...And Russia, too, was a manageable girl in those days, courted by real men, men who would stand up for her, not to be compared with this rabble nowadays"3.
In the 90s, we had abortion clinic bombings that the government did not pay attention to, acts which the government has forgotten, partly because those bombers are indirectly in power! The RW Christians are less intelligent than 8th graders, not because they are "born with it," but because intellectual capacity is not stressed, and merely repeat those same types of slogans and the same arguments that their parents and teachers and leaders spoonfeed to them. And what is to happen if they gain power? We have a model for that, too: 1970s Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini.
The RW Christians seek not to overthrow the bourgeosie, but to overthrow the intellectual "elite" that has "oppressed" them. In truth, they are not oppressed, they are not hunted down with dogs and jailed, etc. They are actually quite allowed to do what they do. The problem becomes (as it is a problem now) that they seek to unravel our fragile democracy in place of their Old Testament government, and tyrannize (as expressed in Borat and Jesus Camp) over what they believe to be evil: The very freedom for individuals to live as they please so long as they affect no one else.
The irony: Many theologians, Muslim and Christian, believe that "Allah" and "God" are the same entity. The "Allah" that flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon and beheads journalists and blows up innocent people is the very same "God" that America turned to so willingly en masse. Its very funny, pleading to your oppressor as you would a benefactor. However, the RW Christian belief that God is punishing America is valid under this premise: Under Islamic law, women have no rights. In America, women have many rights. Under Islamic law, women's sexual deviance is punishable by death. Our law is, realitve to Islamic law, indifferent to sexual activity. In Islamic nations, homosexuals are immediately detroyed. In America, they are allowed to live but are still relatively oppressed. See the connection? God disdains minority freedom.
The catch is that one would have to take parts of the New Testament, as well as small sections of the Old Testament completely out. Jesus is an escape clause. Being that only 22% of RW Christians have actually read the Bible, this isn't a big issue for them4.
Works Cited:
1. Pasternak, Boris. Dr Zhivago. Wm Collins & Sons. London. C. 1958: Boris Pasternak lived in Soviet Russia from before the Revolution and his novel seeks to be as realistic as possible. The rest of the paragraph is not taken from the novel, just that quotation. Also of note is a review of
A Study of Bolshevism: Author of review: David G. Smith in The Journal of Politics © 1955 Southern Political Science Association found at http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976494/97p0596n/0?frame=noframe&userID=9597ce5e@wpuni.edu/01cce4406500501bc3993&dpi=3&config=jstor
2. Harris, Dan. Film Shows Youth Training to Fight for Jesus. ABC News. September 17, 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2455343&page=2
3. Ibid. p. 310
4. Altemeyer, Bob. The Authoritarians. University of Manitoba. C. 2/26/07. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Friday, April 6, 2007
New Blog, Bush
My friend and I started a new blog. Find it here: http://perilsofreligion.blogspot.com/
I've been thinking over the past few days: I think it is possible for George W Bush to actually be a good President.
He did one thing that, while it may destroy America, it may also potentially save it. George W Bush singlehandedly exposed, for everyone to see, nearly everything that is wrong with America.
He brought, for us to witness, the very sludge that dammed our progressive streams. He brought into the light, our militarism, our greedy and socially irresponsible and exploitive aristocracy, our racist and religous bigotry and primitive thinking, and our bureaucratic ineptitude, one that ranks, as we have seen in the Katrina Aftermath that still continues, with the Bolshevik bureaucracy. He exposed our corruption, our xenophobia, our psychotic fear of acceptance of differences, our disdain for immigrants, our epidemic ofperverse conformity, collectivism, and the putrid stench of groupthink.
One might say, "This is not America!" But it is. We are seeing ourselves. For eight years, everything that we denied about ourselves will have tyrannized over us. What we now need to do, if America is to survive as a superpower, is gather the will (political and individual) to clean up this mud and refuse that holds our livelihoods and our once-proud nation hostage.
If we do not fight back, if the best of us is conquered by the worst of us, well, thats for a science fiction author to describe...
I've been thinking over the past few days: I think it is possible for George W Bush to actually be a good President.
He did one thing that, while it may destroy America, it may also potentially save it. George W Bush singlehandedly exposed, for everyone to see, nearly everything that is wrong with America.
He brought, for us to witness, the very sludge that dammed our progressive streams. He brought into the light, our militarism, our greedy and socially irresponsible and exploitive aristocracy, our racist and religous bigotry and primitive thinking, and our bureaucratic ineptitude, one that ranks, as we have seen in the Katrina Aftermath that still continues, with the Bolshevik bureaucracy. He exposed our corruption, our xenophobia, our psychotic fear of acceptance of differences, our disdain for immigrants, our epidemic ofperverse conformity, collectivism, and the putrid stench of groupthink.
One might say, "This is not America!" But it is. We are seeing ourselves. For eight years, everything that we denied about ourselves will have tyrannized over us. What we now need to do, if America is to survive as a superpower, is gather the will (political and individual) to clean up this mud and refuse that holds our livelihoods and our once-proud nation hostage.
If we do not fight back, if the best of us is conquered by the worst of us, well, thats for a science fiction author to describe...
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Morality
It's time for a new morality in the United States. Now, whenever someone says this, oftentimes the rallying cry sparks a revolution that ends up creating something worse than what existed before it. But it is not the case here.
What many do not seem to understand that NEVER is there a higher standard than human beings. Whenever one cites pleasing "God," it is quite often at the expense of quality of human life and human lives qua life, existence itself. Examples, if needed, are Ayatollah Khomeini, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the US gov't/Catholic Church policy towards Africa and AIDS, and finally the Religious Conservative Movement in the United States.
There are two standards of "good" among people, religious and not.
One standard is God, as defined by the square root of -1, a fittingly irrational number. (gV-1)
The other is human beings.
God's status of "good" permits "him" to commit horrendous atrocities (commanding Abraham to kill his son, drowning all but two people, allowing his only son to be murdered by manipulating and self-satisfying religious authorities (how ironic!), allowing Job to be tormented by his brother Satan, having no regard whatsoever for the quality of life for roughly half of the population (female), and commanding horrific punishments for disproportionate crimes) and still be looked upon as "good."
If Genesis were "good", microorganisms that kill large organisms, disastrous storms, and predatory animals would alse have to be "good," and thus the misery by default of the first human beings according to the Bible must also by default be "good."
When human beings attempt to emulate God's Good (gV-1), they cause moral and political anomalies that destroy human existence and diminish the quality of human life.
One might say that that is the whole point, but what then is the purpose does it serve to worship or love something that is completely destructive? Fear? That is equivalent to superstition, and God does not have a secret police anymore (Spanish Inquisition). There is no reasonable case for worshipping or even qualifying God as "good" when he clearly is not.
What I propose is that human beings only do what is best for them. Public policy should never, ever be based upon "pleasing God." Human beings need to learn to care for themselves and others without the notion of "God."
For example, Global Warming. Many RW Christians have begun to believe in it. But why does it matter what Genesis says? Why is it not enough of a reason that WE LIVE HERE?
And why does what two people do in their own beds matter? Why is/are contraception, stem cell research, abortion, women's equality, recreational sexual activity, and homosexuality "bad"? If I could get an objective, non-theological answer to any of these, I'd be very pleased.
Recommended texts: The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer, End of Faith by Sam Harris, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
What many do not seem to understand that NEVER is there a higher standard than human beings. Whenever one cites pleasing "God," it is quite often at the expense of quality of human life and human lives qua life, existence itself. Examples, if needed, are Ayatollah Khomeini, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the US gov't/Catholic Church policy towards Africa and AIDS, and finally the Religious Conservative Movement in the United States.
There are two standards of "good" among people, religious and not.
One standard is God, as defined by the square root of -1, a fittingly irrational number. (gV-1)
The other is human beings.
God's status of "good" permits "him" to commit horrendous atrocities (commanding Abraham to kill his son, drowning all but two people, allowing his only son to be murdered by manipulating and self-satisfying religious authorities (how ironic!), allowing Job to be tormented by his brother Satan, having no regard whatsoever for the quality of life for roughly half of the population (female), and commanding horrific punishments for disproportionate crimes) and still be looked upon as "good."
If Genesis were "good", microorganisms that kill large organisms, disastrous storms, and predatory animals would alse have to be "good," and thus the misery by default of the first human beings according to the Bible must also by default be "good."
When human beings attempt to emulate God's Good (gV-1), they cause moral and political anomalies that destroy human existence and diminish the quality of human life.
One might say that that is the whole point, but what then is the purpose does it serve to worship or love something that is completely destructive? Fear? That is equivalent to superstition, and God does not have a secret police anymore (Spanish Inquisition). There is no reasonable case for worshipping or even qualifying God as "good" when he clearly is not.
What I propose is that human beings only do what is best for them. Public policy should never, ever be based upon "pleasing God." Human beings need to learn to care for themselves and others without the notion of "God."
For example, Global Warming. Many RW Christians have begun to believe in it. But why does it matter what Genesis says? Why is it not enough of a reason that WE LIVE HERE?
And why does what two people do in their own beds matter? Why is/are contraception, stem cell research, abortion, women's equality, recreational sexual activity, and homosexuality "bad"? If I could get an objective, non-theological answer to any of these, I'd be very pleased.
Recommended texts: The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer, End of Faith by Sam Harris, The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Jesus Camp and Other Topics
I saw Jesus Camp. I really don't know what to say about it, other than things that have already been said. My mother tuned out the political implications of what she called "child abuse." Heidi Ewing and Rachael Grady so masterfully diagnosed the mechanics of the cancer that has stricken America. It is, for me, as though America was a close relative who is dying of some terminal disease, Huntington's. No longer able to control its actions, overcome by madness and failing historical memory, few can help it. Both parties take the outwardly fascist faction of the Republican Krieg Machina to bed, at our Constitution's peril. I implore all Americans capable of rational thought, not to tolerate the intolerant. Hedges, ex-President Carter, Phillips, Dawkins Altemeyer, etc, may spit books out by the hundreds, but try telling a schizophrenic that what he believes is untrue. Evidence and reason have no effect. During the Jesus Camp documentary, the interplaying of individualist fairy-tales ("God has a plan for you, he knew you before you were born," etc) and abortion politics is disturbingly clear, as is their political agenda, summed up in a few sentences: "Rise up righteous government! Bring down corrupt government! They took God from your public schools, but they cannot take God from our hearts!" coupled with the pastor's admission of theo-fascist, antidemocratic sentiment.
I don't want to play the political game of 1920s Russia: People denouncing one another simply to save their lives. Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of We, was betrayed by colleagues and former friends as the Bolsheviks cracked down on the literary world. This again happened late in Stalin's life, when his maddening addiction to power brought paranoia and unimaginable fear. He, with his secret police, began a witch hunt.
Why is it so frighteningly difficult for people to see through this God-talk and self-righteousness? Leo Tolstoy wrote in Resurrection, "Could it be that all of this talk about justice, goodness, law, religion, God, and so on, was nothing but so many words to conceal the grossest self-interest and cruelty?"1. Yes, Count Tolstoy. It not only could be, it is.
Many revolutions in the past, most of them, especially the one most similar to what our Christian Fascists envision, the Iranian Revolution, ended much worse than what they originally opposed. Certainly, as Becky Fischer says, "[She'd] like to see kids laying down their lives for the Gospels," they do not care how red the streets become. No revolutionary ever did. Anyone who believes that their ends justify their means is disturbingly frightening, and anyone who puts the glory of God over the quality of human life, I think, is extremely dangerous.
Stalin, who was a god to the Russian urbanites, starved millions upon millions of rural farmers, and killed even more urbanites in industrial projects. And yet, he was still seen as a god.
This is extremely similar to the Judeo-Christian god, who drowned all but two of his people, ordered Abraham to kill his firstborn, ordered death for any petty crime, left half of his people to the will of the other half, and left his own son to be crucified by his tyrants.
-Stalin left his son to die in a German concentration camp, preferring to keep his captured German general, who was worth more to him than his only son and possible successor.
-Stalin ruled with an iron fist, and the penitentiaries and secret police prisons, not to mention the infamous Gulags, were always filled to the brim.
-A significant portion of the population was exploited for the industrial population. The rural farmers lost their tools and most of their belongings under the NEP, and all of what they produced belonged not to them for any negotiable trade, but to the State, or, "Collective," or, Stalin himself.
-Stalin destroyed icons and religious places and banned such practices, and replaced them with himself as a god. His portrait hung in every home, and statues of himself were erected in every park.
-Stalin viewed himself as the Father of the People.
-Those who followed him were rewarded with cars and vacations, and those who did not were destroyed. Every once in a while he would "answer a prayer" and remove a name from his execution list, which he drew up himself.
-His wife was distant from him. After a public scuffle between them, she died.
-Kirov's popularity in the legislative, pseudo-democratic Delegate, caused Stalin much jealousy. Not only did he order Kirov murdered, but the entire Delegate as well.
Stalin is the Judeo-Christian God according to comparison between his biography and chronicle of his time in power, and the Bible itself.
Is this what we want for America?
Works Cited
Tolstoy, Leo. Resurrection. Penguin Classics. New York, New York. 1966.
History International. Stalin: Man of Steel.
I don't want to play the political game of 1920s Russia: People denouncing one another simply to save their lives. Yevgeny Zamyatin, author of We, was betrayed by colleagues and former friends as the Bolsheviks cracked down on the literary world. This again happened late in Stalin's life, when his maddening addiction to power brought paranoia and unimaginable fear. He, with his secret police, began a witch hunt.
Why is it so frighteningly difficult for people to see through this God-talk and self-righteousness? Leo Tolstoy wrote in Resurrection, "Could it be that all of this talk about justice, goodness, law, religion, God, and so on, was nothing but so many words to conceal the grossest self-interest and cruelty?"1. Yes, Count Tolstoy. It not only could be, it is.
Many revolutions in the past, most of them, especially the one most similar to what our Christian Fascists envision, the Iranian Revolution, ended much worse than what they originally opposed. Certainly, as Becky Fischer says, "[She'd] like to see kids laying down their lives for the Gospels," they do not care how red the streets become. No revolutionary ever did. Anyone who believes that their ends justify their means is disturbingly frightening, and anyone who puts the glory of God over the quality of human life, I think, is extremely dangerous.
Stalin, who was a god to the Russian urbanites, starved millions upon millions of rural farmers, and killed even more urbanites in industrial projects. And yet, he was still seen as a god.
This is extremely similar to the Judeo-Christian god, who drowned all but two of his people, ordered Abraham to kill his firstborn, ordered death for any petty crime, left half of his people to the will of the other half, and left his own son to be crucified by his tyrants.
-Stalin left his son to die in a German concentration camp, preferring to keep his captured German general, who was worth more to him than his only son and possible successor.
-Stalin ruled with an iron fist, and the penitentiaries and secret police prisons, not to mention the infamous Gulags, were always filled to the brim.
-A significant portion of the population was exploited for the industrial population. The rural farmers lost their tools and most of their belongings under the NEP, and all of what they produced belonged not to them for any negotiable trade, but to the State, or, "Collective," or, Stalin himself.
-Stalin destroyed icons and religious places and banned such practices, and replaced them with himself as a god. His portrait hung in every home, and statues of himself were erected in every park.
-Stalin viewed himself as the Father of the People.
-Those who followed him were rewarded with cars and vacations, and those who did not were destroyed. Every once in a while he would "answer a prayer" and remove a name from his execution list, which he drew up himself.
-His wife was distant from him. After a public scuffle between them, she died.
-Kirov's popularity in the legislative, pseudo-democratic Delegate, caused Stalin much jealousy. Not only did he order Kirov murdered, but the entire Delegate as well.
Stalin is the Judeo-Christian God according to comparison between his biography and chronicle of his time in power, and the Bible itself.
Is this what we want for America?
Works Cited
Tolstoy, Leo. Resurrection. Penguin Classics. New York, New York. 1966.
History International. Stalin: Man of Steel.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Raising a Kid in Nazi Germany, The N-Word
I am often one to base my arguments in the best thing we have to judge events by, history. I'm a Presentist: One who studies history primarily for the benefit of the present.
1941 Germany, Russia, Italy, or Spain, or 1982 Iran or 1995 Afghanistan or Iraq, or present-day North Korea.
Imagine you have a young kid, you are a political dissident, and your kid asks you why things are so bad. What do you say?
My goal in asking this question is to prepare for the future, if recipies for political disaster materialize, as they are brewing now.
Imagine, in 2008, again, 61% of the electorate do not vote in either primary, and the religious RWAs (see previous post) vote for Sam Brownback.
Two years pass (it is now 2010) and things have turned for the worse. How do you explain to your kid, who, by this time, at 10 years old, is familiar with American ideals of individualism? "Daddy/Mommy, why is this happening?"
How would you explain that in the past two elections (the future, now), the majority of Americans were not paying attention, were not concerned for the applicable security of their freedoms, as one branch was invertebrate and schizophrenic, the other was megalomaniacal, and the last was too passive.
Before WW1, industrialists knew what the conditions of the Great Powers truly meant (militarily, industrially), that the war would last for a long while. They did speak up, but were silenced by ignorant right-wing pro-war critics caught up in the "spirit of adventure." Some stay against boredom they got themselves into. What did these industrialists tell their teenagers off to the front?
Here's a little bit of totalitarianism: Word is that the term "nig---" is being "banned" in some townships, including NYC. Yes, it is an ugly word, an important part of our heritage. But we cannot "ban" a word! How can we enforce such a thing? The chaos that would ensue if we had censors doing WordFind on Harper Lee, Frederick Douglass, William Faulkner, etc? Isn't that what America is? And history books! How are students to know the full extent of the horror upon Blacks/*African-Americans inflicted by the wonderful US of A over the period of 300+ years if the terms by which they were described in that time are barred from use?
Worse yet (and even more bizarre) is that that poetic word is used as a term of endearment between many Blacks/African-Americans!
Look, it is an ugly word, a very degrading word, but this is supposed to be America, not 1940s Germany. The possible methods of enforcement are terrible and the consequences far outweigh any possible "good" that the law might do. We've already much betrayed our individualist ideals, let us not continue down that path further.
The government cannot cure hate through legislation. Hate has a source that needs to be addressed through education and the broadening of individual horizons. At best, the government largely profits from hate.
*: Some people prefer one term or the other, I am doing my best to please both.
1941 Germany, Russia, Italy, or Spain, or 1982 Iran or 1995 Afghanistan or Iraq, or present-day North Korea.
Imagine you have a young kid, you are a political dissident, and your kid asks you why things are so bad. What do you say?
My goal in asking this question is to prepare for the future, if recipies for political disaster materialize, as they are brewing now.
Imagine, in 2008, again, 61% of the electorate do not vote in either primary, and the religious RWAs (see previous post) vote for Sam Brownback.
Two years pass (it is now 2010) and things have turned for the worse. How do you explain to your kid, who, by this time, at 10 years old, is familiar with American ideals of individualism? "Daddy/Mommy, why is this happening?"
How would you explain that in the past two elections (the future, now), the majority of Americans were not paying attention, were not concerned for the applicable security of their freedoms, as one branch was invertebrate and schizophrenic, the other was megalomaniacal, and the last was too passive.
Before WW1, industrialists knew what the conditions of the Great Powers truly meant (militarily, industrially), that the war would last for a long while. They did speak up, but were silenced by ignorant right-wing pro-war critics caught up in the "spirit of adventure." Some stay against boredom they got themselves into. What did these industrialists tell their teenagers off to the front?
Here's a little bit of totalitarianism: Word is that the term "nig---" is being "banned" in some townships, including NYC. Yes, it is an ugly word, an important part of our heritage. But we cannot "ban" a word! How can we enforce such a thing? The chaos that would ensue if we had censors doing WordFind on Harper Lee, Frederick Douglass, William Faulkner, etc? Isn't that what America is? And history books! How are students to know the full extent of the horror upon Blacks/*African-Americans inflicted by the wonderful US of A over the period of 300+ years if the terms by which they were described in that time are barred from use?
Worse yet (and even more bizarre) is that that poetic word is used as a term of endearment between many Blacks/African-Americans!
Look, it is an ugly word, a very degrading word, but this is supposed to be America, not 1940s Germany. The possible methods of enforcement are terrible and the consequences far outweigh any possible "good" that the law might do. We've already much betrayed our individualist ideals, let us not continue down that path further.
The government cannot cure hate through legislation. Hate has a source that needs to be addressed through education and the broadening of individual horizons. At best, the government largely profits from hate.
*: Some people prefer one term or the other, I am doing my best to please both.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Aldous Huxley and the Future of Man
Aldous Huxley predicted many things in his 1932 novel Brave New World, including stem cell research, genetics and helicopters, but there was one thing that has come to pass that is key both to his novel and message and our suvival as individuals, nations, and a species.
Mr Huxley, in BNW depicted the humans in his dystopia as child-like, and that is what we are now. Human beings, particularly in the United States, no longer have the intellectual and emotional capacity to face the reality that they themselves have created, which is why these adult children so often turn to the one thing that keeps real-world consequences from their sight: Religion. Self-Explanatory. I'm sure, if you're smart, you'll know how it works in this way. The more important thing right now is the consequences of these adult-child humans.
In the beginning of World War 1, the populations of boh the Axis and Allied powers believed that the war would last for days, weeks, or months, and had no idea that the circumstances that existed between the Great Powers (industry, economy, military power were more or less equal between them) would force the war to go on and cost as much (in human life and economic devastation) as it did. When the war ended, the surviving veterans were viewed with malice and shame. Why? Because of reality. These men and women (medics, some fought on the front) that saw and experienced the holocaust of the front and makeshift hospitals had something inside of them that was a serious threat to the sheltered civilization, even though it was supposedly for them that these millions of men and women were sacrificed, and now that they have returned, they presented a threat to the masses' normal, sheltered pseudo-reality.
Jump ahead 27 years, the atom bombs were dropped on Japan. It takes less than 5 years for the USSR to develop their atom bombs. It was seldom realized that humanity was capable of such wanton horror (historical events are soon forgotten!), but Hitler's domestic policies are soon uncovered, and the masses cried (and some still do, for various and dubious reasons) that such a thing was morally impossible. But Hitler and his subordinates kept meticulous records.
How is it that people can say that such a thing cannot be done after History has proved, time and time again, that it can and often does? The ones that deny it are often the ones with a desire to repeat it. Didnt they, the deniers around 1945-1950, slaughter 100,000-200,000 Japanese, and, earlier, order 1.2-2 million men and women to die half-buried in the ground? And before that, for centuries, force Africans to work for them under extremely harsh conditions without regard for their quality of life and continue, to this day (though subtlely) to discriminate against them?
To the present, now. Our government and other authorities treat adults like children, church attendance is at an all-time high. Our President has appointed a theocratic nincompoop as the head of the women's health organization, the FDA has made (until recently) decisions based upon theocratic "principles" in regard to contraceptives and information about sexual health. A large percentage of the population (31% according to Time Magazine) is more concerned with The Book of Revelations, gay marriage, and the submissiveness of women than national economic prosperity, human health and the quality of human life here and abroad.
Why must we, unless we are adult-children, be so terrified of sex? Why does our government (thanks to a significant constituency that is that 31% from Time Magazine) believe that it should tell adults what to do with their bodies, criminalize certain therwise normal activities (like oral sex and anal sex, which are on the books as illegal in some Midwest and Southern states), and provide blatant misinformation ("Abortion causes breast cancer," a statement from the theocrat who was put in charge of the federal organization of women's health)?
AIDS in Africa. What are we doing about it? Basically nothing. Nothing effective, that is. Our government, attached to that same 31%, has decided to preach Abstinance Only, continuing the slaughter of human beings by a microorganism. Remember the 70s and 80s? "AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals." Well, now it's "God's punishment for female infants in the wrong place at the wrong time." That's right: A popular myth in AIDS-devastated Africa is that to cure AIDS, rape a virgin. The only virgins left, really, are small children and infants. The Catholic church is debating (now this is sad) whether or not to drop the anti-contraceptive stance because of this crisis. If you weren't a religious conservative, this would be a no-brainer. I'd entrust this decision to a 2-year-old, but not an authoritarian attatched to an organization with a deplorable history. Sam Harris said to Stephen Colbert, that it is "genocidal stupidity."
This over-attention to religion, according to many sources, including Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy, is going to contribute to our demise as a superower. This is where Huxley and BNW come in. Since the Cold War: 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, anti-intellectualism has dominated popular sentiment, and now, as college is becoming less and less affordable, it is becoming easier to rebel against academia. Non-accredited evangelical colleges, like (un)Liberty are springing up by popular demand. Standards are lowering for job applicants and business graduates. Even medical students are less and less required to acknowledge Darwinian Theory and basic facts in anthropology.
This extends not just to the social level, but the individual level as well. Escapism has become too widespread. A friend said to me, "What happens when a society is too afraid to lift the cover on the shi- they buried?" What happens when people are terrified to face the consequences of the realities they've created? Again, religion plays into this, the same way it did earlier in my essay. I've been reading this book in PDF format about Right-Wing Authoritarians and fundamentalists and evangelicals. Their "compartmentalized mind" and blind faith in a book a significant majority of them have never read allows them to easily find comfort in Jesus while commiting what would normally would be called a "sin" without any blip of remorse at all(Altemeyer). Does Ted Haggard feel any guilt from cheating on his wife, even worse, with another male? I dont think so, nothing genuine. Does he sincerely understand what his wife possibly feels? Does he care to? I'm not sure. Why is this so? We know why. If you forget, read the second paragraph again.
It's being a kid, having mommy and daddy (in adult cases, an imaginary friend named Jesus) to pick up the pieces. In Altemeyer's book, he writes that the religious RWAs almost never confront the one they've sinned against about the issue. That's what I mean by those parentheses. That is what I mean by adults being children. And there are those who come by and see the naked shards of the glass globe on the living room floor, telling the destructor, "Look what you did! You have to pick up the pieces," but the destructor states, in delirium, "It's OK, Jesus will pick up the pieces. Everything is fine."
What I haven't gotten to is why we can't afford to exist like this. It is easy to deny one's reality, and seductive too. But the world isn't going to be fixed that way, is it? It is also easy to understand why we cannot survive in a fictionalized, "safe" world. It would be easy to believe everything the government, or anyone else ever told you, right? But we can't. Yet a lot of us are, and we're declining because of it, socially and politically. Relationships deteriorate because people believe what others say (remember Othello?) about sex, that certain otherwise normal, things are bad, that this country is the best in the world, even though we are discriminatory and very repressive (authors such as F. Scott Fitzgerald fled to Europe because they are more tolerant).
You know all of the ridiculous commmercials and advertisements on TV? Or the tabloids? Can you imagine if people believed them? People do. And I never thought about Brave New World in that light before yesterday.
Works Cited:
American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips 2006
Time Magazine week of October 31st 2006- early November 2006
The Authoritarians by Bob Alemeyer http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Mr Huxley, in BNW depicted the humans in his dystopia as child-like, and that is what we are now. Human beings, particularly in the United States, no longer have the intellectual and emotional capacity to face the reality that they themselves have created, which is why these adult children so often turn to the one thing that keeps real-world consequences from their sight: Religion. Self-Explanatory. I'm sure, if you're smart, you'll know how it works in this way. The more important thing right now is the consequences of these adult-child humans.
In the beginning of World War 1, the populations of boh the Axis and Allied powers believed that the war would last for days, weeks, or months, and had no idea that the circumstances that existed between the Great Powers (industry, economy, military power were more or less equal between them) would force the war to go on and cost as much (in human life and economic devastation) as it did. When the war ended, the surviving veterans were viewed with malice and shame. Why? Because of reality. These men and women (medics, some fought on the front) that saw and experienced the holocaust of the front and makeshift hospitals had something inside of them that was a serious threat to the sheltered civilization, even though it was supposedly for them that these millions of men and women were sacrificed, and now that they have returned, they presented a threat to the masses' normal, sheltered pseudo-reality.
Jump ahead 27 years, the atom bombs were dropped on Japan. It takes less than 5 years for the USSR to develop their atom bombs. It was seldom realized that humanity was capable of such wanton horror (historical events are soon forgotten!), but Hitler's domestic policies are soon uncovered, and the masses cried (and some still do, for various and dubious reasons) that such a thing was morally impossible. But Hitler and his subordinates kept meticulous records.
How is it that people can say that such a thing cannot be done after History has proved, time and time again, that it can and often does? The ones that deny it are often the ones with a desire to repeat it. Didnt they, the deniers around 1945-1950, slaughter 100,000-200,000 Japanese, and, earlier, order 1.2-2 million men and women to die half-buried in the ground? And before that, for centuries, force Africans to work for them under extremely harsh conditions without regard for their quality of life and continue, to this day (though subtlely) to discriminate against them?
To the present, now. Our government and other authorities treat adults like children, church attendance is at an all-time high. Our President has appointed a theocratic nincompoop as the head of the women's health organization, the FDA has made (until recently) decisions based upon theocratic "principles" in regard to contraceptives and information about sexual health. A large percentage of the population (31% according to Time Magazine) is more concerned with The Book of Revelations, gay marriage, and the submissiveness of women than national economic prosperity, human health and the quality of human life here and abroad.
Why must we, unless we are adult-children, be so terrified of sex? Why does our government (thanks to a significant constituency that is that 31% from Time Magazine) believe that it should tell adults what to do with their bodies, criminalize certain therwise normal activities (like oral sex and anal sex, which are on the books as illegal in some Midwest and Southern states), and provide blatant misinformation ("Abortion causes breast cancer," a statement from the theocrat who was put in charge of the federal organization of women's health)?
AIDS in Africa. What are we doing about it? Basically nothing. Nothing effective, that is. Our government, attached to that same 31%, has decided to preach Abstinance Only, continuing the slaughter of human beings by a microorganism. Remember the 70s and 80s? "AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals." Well, now it's "God's punishment for female infants in the wrong place at the wrong time." That's right: A popular myth in AIDS-devastated Africa is that to cure AIDS, rape a virgin. The only virgins left, really, are small children and infants. The Catholic church is debating (now this is sad) whether or not to drop the anti-contraceptive stance because of this crisis. If you weren't a religious conservative, this would be a no-brainer. I'd entrust this decision to a 2-year-old, but not an authoritarian attatched to an organization with a deplorable history. Sam Harris said to Stephen Colbert, that it is "genocidal stupidity."
This over-attention to religion, according to many sources, including Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy, is going to contribute to our demise as a superower. This is where Huxley and BNW come in. Since the Cold War: 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, anti-intellectualism has dominated popular sentiment, and now, as college is becoming less and less affordable, it is becoming easier to rebel against academia. Non-accredited evangelical colleges, like (un)Liberty are springing up by popular demand. Standards are lowering for job applicants and business graduates. Even medical students are less and less required to acknowledge Darwinian Theory and basic facts in anthropology.
This extends not just to the social level, but the individual level as well. Escapism has become too widespread. A friend said to me, "What happens when a society is too afraid to lift the cover on the shi- they buried?" What happens when people are terrified to face the consequences of the realities they've created? Again, religion plays into this, the same way it did earlier in my essay. I've been reading this book in PDF format about Right-Wing Authoritarians and fundamentalists and evangelicals. Their "compartmentalized mind" and blind faith in a book a significant majority of them have never read allows them to easily find comfort in Jesus while commiting what would normally would be called a "sin" without any blip of remorse at all(Altemeyer). Does Ted Haggard feel any guilt from cheating on his wife, even worse, with another male? I dont think so, nothing genuine. Does he sincerely understand what his wife possibly feels? Does he care to? I'm not sure. Why is this so? We know why. If you forget, read the second paragraph again.
It's being a kid, having mommy and daddy (in adult cases, an imaginary friend named Jesus) to pick up the pieces. In Altemeyer's book, he writes that the religious RWAs almost never confront the one they've sinned against about the issue. That's what I mean by those parentheses. That is what I mean by adults being children. And there are those who come by and see the naked shards of the glass globe on the living room floor, telling the destructor, "Look what you did! You have to pick up the pieces," but the destructor states, in delirium, "It's OK, Jesus will pick up the pieces. Everything is fine."
What I haven't gotten to is why we can't afford to exist like this. It is easy to deny one's reality, and seductive too. But the world isn't going to be fixed that way, is it? It is also easy to understand why we cannot survive in a fictionalized, "safe" world. It would be easy to believe everything the government, or anyone else ever told you, right? But we can't. Yet a lot of us are, and we're declining because of it, socially and politically. Relationships deteriorate because people believe what others say (remember Othello?) about sex, that certain otherwise normal, things are bad, that this country is the best in the world, even though we are discriminatory and very repressive (authors such as F. Scott Fitzgerald fled to Europe because they are more tolerant).
You know all of the ridiculous commmercials and advertisements on TV? Or the tabloids? Can you imagine if people believed them? People do. And I never thought about Brave New World in that light before yesterday.
Works Cited:
American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips 2006
Time Magazine week of October 31st 2006- early November 2006
The Authoritarians by Bob Alemeyer http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Sunday, February 18, 2007
The Nature of Fiction
My friends disagree, but what I like most is for fiction to say something about the real world, to present an idea or ideas. This extends to movies as well.
New Criticism focused on the work itself, without even the author, and said that there is one specific idea in any body of work that the reader is supposed to "get." It is not until we get to Historical/Cultural/Biographical Criticism where we not only have the author, but we have The Real World aside from the work itself. HG Wells, prior to WW1, wrote many science-fiction novels on what he believed what the "Great War" was to look like, with planes and even tanks. There was a novel, which we read parts of, called "When William Came," a right-wing propaganda tale of British neglect of European politics and a certain "softness" that resulted in Britain's fade from the world stage, when the Britons begin to speak German (WW1-era).
In movies, an excellent example is THX-1138, George Lucas' first film made in 1971. It was a science-fictionalization, set in the year 2550, of how he sees the world in the 60s-70s, and he mocks Communism, religion, industry, and explores society's perception of love and sex. Accurate? I think so.
My other friend is getting into the Cyberpunk novels of the 70s, specifically Philip K Dick. Cyberpunk is described as a science fiction sub-genre depicting "high-tech low-life," advanced dystopias rich with high crime rates, and Soviet-level corruption in pseudo-democratic (more fascist-leaning) governments. Examples would be: To a certain extent, A Scanner Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell, Equilibrium, Armitage, Armitage III: Polymatrix and Blade Runner, Cowboy Bebop, Outlaw Star.
Maybe I should find a good cyberpunk novel. I might like it.
One of my friends, in the group of friends first mentioned here, can watch Kingdom of Heaven, his favorite movie, and not even consider what the director is trying to say about religion and political power. If you want to offend me, read a big name piece of literature and say, after I ask about it, "so?"
"It's just a book." "It's just a movie." Lots of books are "just books." Lots of movies are "just movies." But other books and movies try to be more than that, an idea. It is those books and movies that I read and see. Because I want something out of them, that idea, the reason that they exist. Janet Evanovich, James Patterson, countless Romance and mystery writers simply write to make money or to entertain Falwell's "flock." But others, though they needed money (like Dostoevsky), did communicate profound things through their work. Dostoevsky was a compulsive gambler and wrote, "The Gambler" to get debt money and rushed the end of Crime & Punishment because of an issue with his publisher and he needed his advance.
New Criticism focused on the work itself, without even the author, and said that there is one specific idea in any body of work that the reader is supposed to "get." It is not until we get to Historical/Cultural/Biographical Criticism where we not only have the author, but we have The Real World aside from the work itself. HG Wells, prior to WW1, wrote many science-fiction novels on what he believed what the "Great War" was to look like, with planes and even tanks. There was a novel, which we read parts of, called "When William Came," a right-wing propaganda tale of British neglect of European politics and a certain "softness" that resulted in Britain's fade from the world stage, when the Britons begin to speak German (WW1-era).
In movies, an excellent example is THX-1138, George Lucas' first film made in 1971. It was a science-fictionalization, set in the year 2550, of how he sees the world in the 60s-70s, and he mocks Communism, religion, industry, and explores society's perception of love and sex. Accurate? I think so.
My other friend is getting into the Cyberpunk novels of the 70s, specifically Philip K Dick. Cyberpunk is described as a science fiction sub-genre depicting "high-tech low-life," advanced dystopias rich with high crime rates, and Soviet-level corruption in pseudo-democratic (more fascist-leaning) governments. Examples would be: To a certain extent, A Scanner Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Neuromancer, Ghost in the Shell, Equilibrium, Armitage, Armitage III: Polymatrix and Blade Runner, Cowboy Bebop, Outlaw Star.
Maybe I should find a good cyberpunk novel. I might like it.
One of my friends, in the group of friends first mentioned here, can watch Kingdom of Heaven, his favorite movie, and not even consider what the director is trying to say about religion and political power. If you want to offend me, read a big name piece of literature and say, after I ask about it, "so?"
"It's just a book." "It's just a movie." Lots of books are "just books." Lots of movies are "just movies." But other books and movies try to be more than that, an idea. It is those books and movies that I read and see. Because I want something out of them, that idea, the reason that they exist. Janet Evanovich, James Patterson, countless Romance and mystery writers simply write to make money or to entertain Falwell's "flock." But others, though they needed money (like Dostoevsky), did communicate profound things through their work. Dostoevsky was a compulsive gambler and wrote, "The Gambler" to get debt money and rushed the end of Crime & Punishment because of an issue with his publisher and he needed his advance.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Stuff Not Covered in First Post, Christianism
-I read...A LOT. Not just dystopian fiction, but also Russian literature (pre- and post-Revolutionary) and old American classics such as The Scarlet Letter (I love Hawthorne :) )
Yes, I have a "thing," a sort of infatuation with Russian literature, which has manifested into an interest in anything Russian, including music (Regina Spektor) and movies (Nightwatch). I really like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I also enjoy Russian-American authors such as Vladimir Nabokov (recently finished Lolita and Invitation to a Beheading) and especially Ayn Rand.
I also read political science texts. I have, in my room, finished, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, American Theocracy, and What's the Matter With Kansas? Ironically, AT and WtMWK? are both written by Republicans!
On End of Faith: I have been a radical atheist before I read this book, thanks to history classes, independent study, and attention to politics. Sam Harris merely verbalized and clarified (thank you Mr Harris!) my sentiments, scaring the crap out of me all the while. What I knew little of at the time was that Jesus was not as "white" (pure) as Elmer Gantries and Grand Inquisitors make him out to be.
However, I think the book is mistitled: "The end of reason," because if these invertebrates and schizophrenics take over, all expressions of reason (Socrates, Rand, Darwin, into the bonfire, Nazi-style or F451!) and even (especially) loving sexual expression will be illegal, replaced by government-sanctioned schizophrenia and by rape between Offred and the Commander. Would there at least be a "Jezebel's," some remnant, though cheapened, sexual outlet? [See The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.]
I had a dream last night that I was a horrific monster. I only got a glimpse of myself but I think I looked something like the Overmind in StarCraft. It was pretty cool.
I have to tell you that I'm big into history. I'm particularly interested in the totalitarian regimes in the pre- and post-WW2 eras, from Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Franco, to Ayatollah Khomeini and the rising fascist* faction of the Republican party. My interest is not at all in support of or the desire to repeat their actions, but instead to prevent them from happening again. I will not say anything bad about them because their actions speak for themselves, but the formulas and conditions that led to such tyranny are almost textbook, from the Bolsheviks to Stalin, from the Muslims to Khomeini.
Radical sentiment is enormously high. A figure rises up as a champion of the cause. That figure obtains political power - and betrays everything. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When I look at people under the spell of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc., I am absolutely terrified because I know how those leaders really feel: They merely want power. Falwell recently described his followers as a "flock." This might have largely gone unnoticed, but I'm going to deconstruct it.
Flock: A group of sheep. What are sheep (for those unfamiliar with human or animal behavior)? Sheep are basically passive animals who do whatever they are told (by a shepherd or vicious dogs on a farm), or sit and eat, minding their own business.
Does anyone see where I'm going? Is there anyone who wants me to keep going?
Ted Haggard expressed anger at evolutionists' description of humans as "animals" (which we are, when everything is boiled down), but the ironic thing is that he and these men capitalize on the unthinking nature of their followers, and treat their followers exactly like the lowest of animals by playing "Follow the Leader." He and others profit because in intellect and self-worth, these people are animals, specifically either sheep (if the activities are benign, which is rare) or lemmings (taken into consideration the political implications of sheep-dom).
"The most dangerous people, I think, are those that either deny, or are wholly ignorant of the consequences of what they advocate." I said these words to an email to my father, and I would like them spread to the minds of every intelligent, critically-thinking human being on this planet. This is why democracy worldwide is in dire straits, from European militant Muslims to Christian Nationalist Americans (Michelle Goldberg).
*Fascist: A significant faction of the Republican party (the Religious Right/Christian conservatives) has no regard for individual thought and power over his or her own life. They seek to shove Christian doctrine and dogma (sexual suppression, misogyny, xenophobia, IGNORANCE) down the throats of every American, as Khomeini did to every Iranian in the 1980s. A Washington correspondent for the NY Times even titled his book American Fascists.
Yes, I have a "thing," a sort of infatuation with Russian literature, which has manifested into an interest in anything Russian, including music (Regina Spektor) and movies (Nightwatch). I really like Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master & Margarita, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I also enjoy Russian-American authors such as Vladimir Nabokov (recently finished Lolita and Invitation to a Beheading) and especially Ayn Rand.
I also read political science texts. I have, in my room, finished, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, American Theocracy, and What's the Matter With Kansas? Ironically, AT and WtMWK? are both written by Republicans!
On End of Faith: I have been a radical atheist before I read this book, thanks to history classes, independent study, and attention to politics. Sam Harris merely verbalized and clarified (thank you Mr Harris!) my sentiments, scaring the crap out of me all the while. What I knew little of at the time was that Jesus was not as "white" (pure) as Elmer Gantries and Grand Inquisitors make him out to be.
However, I think the book is mistitled: "The end of reason," because if these invertebrates and schizophrenics take over, all expressions of reason (Socrates, Rand, Darwin, into the bonfire, Nazi-style or F451!) and even (especially) loving sexual expression will be illegal, replaced by government-sanctioned schizophrenia and by rape between Offred and the Commander. Would there at least be a "Jezebel's," some remnant, though cheapened, sexual outlet? [See The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.]
I had a dream last night that I was a horrific monster. I only got a glimpse of myself but I think I looked something like the Overmind in StarCraft. It was pretty cool.
I have to tell you that I'm big into history. I'm particularly interested in the totalitarian regimes in the pre- and post-WW2 eras, from Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Franco, to Ayatollah Khomeini and the rising fascist* faction of the Republican party. My interest is not at all in support of or the desire to repeat their actions, but instead to prevent them from happening again. I will not say anything bad about them because their actions speak for themselves, but the formulas and conditions that led to such tyranny are almost textbook, from the Bolsheviks to Stalin, from the Muslims to Khomeini.
Radical sentiment is enormously high. A figure rises up as a champion of the cause. That figure obtains political power - and betrays everything. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When I look at people under the spell of Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc., I am absolutely terrified because I know how those leaders really feel: They merely want power. Falwell recently described his followers as a "flock." This might have largely gone unnoticed, but I'm going to deconstruct it.
Flock: A group of sheep. What are sheep (for those unfamiliar with human or animal behavior)? Sheep are basically passive animals who do whatever they are told (by a shepherd or vicious dogs on a farm), or sit and eat, minding their own business.
Does anyone see where I'm going? Is there anyone who wants me to keep going?
Ted Haggard expressed anger at evolutionists' description of humans as "animals" (which we are, when everything is boiled down), but the ironic thing is that he and these men capitalize on the unthinking nature of their followers, and treat their followers exactly like the lowest of animals by playing "Follow the Leader." He and others profit because in intellect and self-worth, these people are animals, specifically either sheep (if the activities are benign, which is rare) or lemmings (taken into consideration the political implications of sheep-dom).
"The most dangerous people, I think, are those that either deny, or are wholly ignorant of the consequences of what they advocate." I said these words to an email to my father, and I would like them spread to the minds of every intelligent, critically-thinking human being on this planet. This is why democracy worldwide is in dire straits, from European militant Muslims to Christian Nationalist Americans (Michelle Goldberg).
*Fascist: A significant faction of the Republican party (the Religious Right/Christian conservatives) has no regard for individual thought and power over his or her own life. They seek to shove Christian doctrine and dogma (sexual suppression, misogyny, xenophobia, IGNORANCE) down the throats of every American, as Khomeini did to every Iranian in the 1980s. A Washington correspondent for the NY Times even titled his book American Fascists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)