Separation of Church and Sensitbilities...
With the perceived threat of rampant Christian theocracy hanging over us like a pall of black, Papal smoke, I'd like to take a few minutes to consider just what the detractors of religion are so worried about. From where I sit, it would seem that many of the so-called 'liberals' and the religious amongst us have similar goals. If a liberal tells you he wishes to have a fair and just society, where all men are created equal, how is that any different than Jesus' command that we love one another or "do unto others as you would have done unto you", or even Islam's central belief in universal brotherhood?

If the same liberal tells you he wants a just society, then what is the difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and a first degree murder statute? Would slavery have ceased to exist in this country had there not been a strong, moral imperative, stemming from religious faith (amongst other things)? Would the institution of slavery ever been pulled down if Chuck Shumer, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid been in charge back in the 1860's? Or would the idea be rejected as the "agenda of an extreme right-wing religious zealotry"?

In fact, I can see no difference between much of the liberal mantra and what is offered as the foundations of Christian faith. So what's the hubub all about? The hubub is that the liberal ca no longer advance his agenda through reason, because his reason has been fond to be faulty. The welfare state lifted very few boats, and in fact, perpetuated economic and social inequality. The "tune-in, turn-on, drop-out" crowd did nothing more than glamorize drug use that led to peple gunning each other down in the streets. The micromanagement of people's activities and lifestyles has done little more than to create a permanent class of people incapable of action unless directed by an ever-more expensive and exapnsive government, which achieves very little except it's own perpetuation. And the people are sick of it. They are fighting back, and sending notice that what once was will never be again.

In my opinion, the argumetns about the role of religion in our daiily lives, and in our government institutions, goes to the heart of four very important pillars of liberal belief;

1. That man is his own master and that having been born with an intellect, all advances must be the products of that intellect. The liberal love affair with the intellect is so well documented that to argue otherwise is to waste breath. The intellectual is to the liberal as the Supreme Being is to the faithful. Anything not created or advanced by man's raw intelligence is not useful. The emotional is unimportant unless it can somehow be used to advance the intellectual. For example, liberals trot out the cause of the homeless every so often in order to make a politcal point about the inequities in society, but what do they actually ever do about it? The raw emotion evoked at the sight of a dirty, drug-addicted wretch is powerful: we feel guilt, we feel shame that our fellow human beings are degraded to such a state, hungry, cold and sick. The liberal then takes that guilt and shame, and instead of directly acting upon it, taking a bum to lunch for example, uses it to advance a political agenda more in tune with his ideology; continued utopian experimentation (more drug counselling, more job retraining, etc) and further redistribution of wealth schemes (extending welfare benefits, for example). Never will they actually go out, find bums and take personal responsibility for them the way they urge the rest of us to do.

2. Being intellectual, they believe, excuses them from any actual legwork of physical labor. It is better to think, to suggest, to direct, then to actually produce. So, if bums clog up the street, it's not the liberal's fault (he's thinking really hard about it, and thus, doing his civic duty), it must be someone else's. It's also someone else's place to do the work, to pay for it and to take responsibility. The avoidance of responsibility is anothe rhallmark of the liberal mind. People are not responsible for their actions, and responsibility is usually transferred to some impersonal object or such; "society" is to blame for some evils, guns kill people, automobiles are the main threat to the plane, "the government" pay for things, or alternately, does not pay for them. John Kerry cried to us on television about the plight of the uninsured, but offered no concrete plan to remedy the situation. His fallback position was that the "government" would pay for it all. John's not as dumb as he looks and he knew full well that the "government" meant "the taxpayer". If it worked, he would take responibility for having provided something unprecedented (like the ability to get someone else to pay for your penis enlargement). Had it failed, it would have been because "the program is underfunded". The anvil of blame would never have landed on John's perfectly-coiffed head.

3. That the intellectual is always superior to the spiritual and superstition. Any belief that cannot be reasoned through and cannot be scientifically proven to have a firm foundation, must be the result of suprstition, which is the antithesis of the intellect. The 'leap of faith' threatens the 'leap of logic' and therefore, must be combatted. Utopian society can only be made to work when reason is applied in all areas of human endeavor and when fear, superstition and prejudices can be eliminated. The path to elimination is through reason. In the liberal mindset, once everyone has been taught the same methodology of thought, paradise will follow. And it will be a paradise of human creation, created by the intellect, with no competing system of thought or belief tolerated to screw it up. But faith is strnger than intellect, sometimes,and cannot be combatted once it is entrenched. So, the liberal must be steadfast in his devotion to the elimination of superstition; no prayer in school, no metion of God, removing the Ten Commandments from places where they've been displayed forever.

4. Human paradise can only be brought about by the concentration of power and the moral standing of the state. The state must be the arbiter of all things, an impersonal, solid monolith devoid of all emotions except unquestioning loyalty (from it's subjects). The existence of God threatens the implementation of that kind of state by setting up a rival for the state's authority and the expected loyalty. The first casualty of a politically correct state is religion. Because faith cannot be controlled it must be exterminated.

5. The belief that human nature does not exist while simultaneously advancing the idea that human nature can be controlled. This was the hallmark of communism, by the way. Human nature dictates that people will always act in what they perceive to be their own best interests, very often to the detriment of others. The liberal mantra is that once human nature is adequately controlled or at least shaped properly, then the liberal point of view can predominate. The communists tried to control human nature by eliminating want. They did such a rotten job of it that they barely kept anyone alive.The Nazis turned the darker side of human nature to the wanton destruction of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs in the millions. The Japanese dis the same with regards to Westerners and other Asians. Islam does it today with it cires for Jihad against Westerners, Jews and Christians. In most cases, human nature is merely ignored when it becomes inconvenient. Socialism, for example, can never work because human nature dictates that to have merely enough is never enough. If the opposite were true, civilization would never have blossomed and advanced to the state it already has.

So, what does this have to do with what's happening in the here and now?

When the self-professed (anti-)liberals in the Senate can bluster that they will thwart the rule and will of the majority, defending their actions by claiming to defend the abstract notion of rights, against a similar system based on faith instead of reason, they believe themselves to be justified. They are defending their belief system against another. It never occurs to them that had it not been for the rival belief system, their own could possbily never exist in the first place.

When democrats can claim to be defending the rights of the minority against a looming tyrranical theocratic movement, theyare really defending their own turf --- the continued building of an all-powerful state with no rivals, political or religious, but especially religious.
There is a connotation implied when you throw the adjective 'religious' into your argument. It implies inflexibility, it implies ceeding control to a force or being who cannot be argued with, reasoned with, understood or touched. On several levels, I agree with them. But on the other hand, the same adjective also implies other things; morality, justice and concscience.

To a liberal, morality is what society chooses to make it, not what a society chooses to believe. God may say "thou shalt not kill", but that commandment interferes with the intellectual argument that a woman cannot be truly free unless released from the shackles of motherhood, and that runs counter to the theory of why abortion should be legal. If God commands abstinence until marriage it runs counter to the liberal philosophy of allowing people physical freedom, while denying their political freedom --- you may fuck, all you want, but you may not have a say in how your life is run otherwise. One of the basic arguments in favor of Gay Marriage, which is never discussed, is that while gay sex is considered disgusting and immoral by many, if you gave it the religious patina attached to marriage, it would make the concept more palatible to society as a whole. To a liberal, true freedom revolves around the freedom of his/her genitalia, moral (for Bill Clinton, make that oral) conventions be damned.
The same could be said about justice. It says right there in the Constitution that "All men are created equal", but guilt over past events compels liberals to elevate the 'equality' of some over that of others. You may not racially profile, for example, when it comes to law enforcement or stopping terrorists from acting, but you can (and are encouraged to do so) when it comes to figuring out who goes to law school. Or redesigning a congressional district. Or deciding who gets government largesse. Racial profilling is bad, except when it comes to portraying all whites as lilly-livered, greedy, WASP-ish misers, unfairly controlling all the wealth in the world --- except when it's the lilly-livered, WASP-ish, miserly whites dressed up as defenders of the poor and oppressed. Justice is also a fungible proposition, it's what the liberal says it is today, in order to fit his needs in advancing his agenda. He needs allies because all thinking people cannot see the pure, intellectual grace of hius arguments --- bribed allies do just fine in a pinch.

Add to this the fact that liberals in America have lost control of the visible government (they still lurk in every nook and cranny of the federal and state bureacracies) and you can see why religion is such a bad thing to them. The problem cannot be with the liberal's intellectually-devised, reasonable agenda, it must be because some outside force opposes him. In the past, it was 'reactionaries', 'racists', 'the rich', 'capitalists', 'the nobility'. Today, it is the 'religious'. A liberal canot exist without an enemy to castigate. Today's liberal would have you believe that there is a conspiracy taking place, hatched in the backrooms of redneck churches in the wilds of the south, where snake-handling baptists, married-to-the-Pope Catholics and out-of-their-mind Evangelicals have gotten together in a sinsiter plot to undo all the 'progress' of the last 200 years. The conspirators even have names and faces: George W. Bush, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell.

This religiously fanatic cabal will infiltrate and overthrow all the institutions of American government, and institute an age of radical theology, the likes of which haven't been seen since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 or the Intifada of the 1990's. We will become a nation of religious zealots, every bit as dangerous to it's enemies (read: homosexuals, feminists, minorities, democrats, socialists, college professors, etc) as the fearsome forces of Osama Bin Laden are to us now. To point out that the pposite was true, that liberal fundamentalists have infiltrated the institutions of America, is a lie that must be treated as something akin to a killing offense.

That's why the courts must be 'saved' from fundamentalist Christians who don't believe the Constitution to be an 'evolving' document. Heck, if all documents are 'evolving' then I guess I have 'evolved' to the point where I can take upon myself to stop paying my credit card debt, despite the legally-binding contract I've signed. Times have changed and the credit people have to change with them. Forty years of 'progress' in which we can kill our unborn children because we feel like it, or not pay half our incomes to a remote and uncaring government which will use the funds to further control us, is in danger of being washed away. The liberal vision of America is being wiped away with the same attention to detail as one gives to wiping one's nose.

The democrats and liberals have lost at the ballot box. Their ideas have been rejected, their agenda has been tried and found to be wanting, and the last vestige of hope for them lies in getting the courts to do what the legislatures cannot. Anyone who professes anything approaching religious faith, independant thinking, definite notions of morality, justice and conscience, anyone who believe in the power of a free market, rather than government, to improve the lot of their fellow men must be stopped. At all costs.

Liberals claim to not believe in religion. They will pointot examples of history where religion led people to do harm to their fellow men: the Inquisition and the Crusades are favorite examples. They do this while conveniently ignoring the evils of Islam, the perversion of Shinto that led to Emperor Worship, war and slaughter in Asia. They never point to the 'cult of personality' that brought us Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

But it seems to me that while a liberal insists that he believes there should be a wide gulf between religion and ideology, it becomes ever more apparent that his ideology IS his religion.

Meanwhile, back at the Bat Cave...
Interesting confession fromt he Fed'ral Government about the recent spate of news reports and 'studies' on the effects of obeisity. Thakns to Glenn Reynolds at Tech Central Station, we have this:

http://techcentralstation.com/042205D.html

I wonder now if we will ever hear anything about the cancer-causing potential of Tofu.

Score one for the Cookie Monster!

Paging Aldus Huxley...
The conformist, sterile society described in Brave New World has finally arrived. Civilization as we know it is no longer the dynamic engine of constant change and personal advancement. Time has stopped.

Cookie Monster is no longer the Cookie Monster.

I kid you not. In an effort to teach kids about the dangers of junk food, the Children's Television Workshop, the creators of the only show on PBS that was ever worth watching, have decided that Cookie Monster is sending the wrong message to our children. The Cookie Monster that my generation grew up with, loved, venerated, and if it had a chance, would elect to the Senate, will now become a 'healthy eater'. Next up: Bert and Ernie egage in Civil Union, Big Bird mercy kills Mr Snuffleufagus (finally diagnosed as being in a 'persistent vegetative state') for his stem cells, and Elmo is revealed to be a repeat sexual offender released from a Florida prison 24 times.

Conformity has finally arrived. Even for gluttonous puppets.

I used to believe that it was really 1984 that had arrived, with our newly-found ideological rigidnesss and politically-convenient mangling of the language, but I'm wrong on so many levels. We're living in the world that Huxley predicted.

A pill for every disease, no matter how minor. Human beings harvested for their parts like a junkyard. People being defined and categorized by their utility to society. The nails sticking out being pounded down by the hammer of conventional wisdom, and federally funded conventional wisdom, at that. Cookie Monster as vegan. The health and safety Nazis have finally gone too far.

I remember when I was a child that Cookie Monster was special because he was a laugh riot to the four year old brain. He tickled the fancy of children everywhere with his outrageous antics in the pursuit of the chocolate chip. Hs strove mightily for the brass macaroon. He was out of control and on a mission to leave not one crumb unconsumed. Cookie Monster, in short, was the last, true individual, hedonistically-driven to achieve the Hoy Grail of cookie-dom.

Political Correctness has finally killed childhood. May it Rest In Peace.

CTW claims that they are merely trying to send a positive message to children that binge eating and junk food are hazardous to their health. Obesity is dangerous: you can die from it, you know. In all my years, all that is fun about being a child, all that makes worthwhile, has been systematically stripped from succeeding generations until they become good little PC robots incapable of exercising judgement, unable to believe anything unless they see it on TV or have it drilled into their heads in a government school. Meanwhile, the messages they are sent are mixed, purposely, with the goal of creating empty vessels ever present:

Diversity is a wonderful thing; unless you are religious, obese or republican.

You have choices; provided those choices lead you to an abortion and homosexuality.

It's your right to dissent; provided that dissent is officially allowed and follows the party line.

It's your body do what you want to; Except drink soda, eat junk food, smoke ,or stay celebate.

And now this.

Now, my own childhood was not exactly some scene from Norman Rockwell, of course. In my day, we had to worry about Nuclear Holocaust, urban racial violence, and Earth Shoes. But, at the end of the day, we still had Cookie Monster, Bugs, Yogi, Woody and Scooby, all engaged in outrageous displays of excess; all revolving around violence or eating, of course. There's a direct correlation, you know, between violence and McDonald's. But, I don't know a single kid that ever placed dynamite in his antagonist's shorts because Bugs did. I know of not one single, documented case where two children beat each other senseless with overszed mallets, like Woody often did. None of us travelled constantly in a funky van, with a narcissist, a slacker, a hot chick and a sexually-repressed brainiac, chasing ghosts for a living. But we did eat cookies. And we enjoyed it.

And we enjoyed the antics of our Cookie Furher, that little ball of blue fur that taught us that a cookie was more than a simple pleasure in life; it was a God-given right. We laughed, we sang, we mimicked, and it was cute as hell.

I cannnot imagine a 4 year old today, joyously and recklessly devouring a stalk of celery, a head of lettuce or a plate of raddichio, screaming "Veeegggggieeeeee!".

But, as we learned in the 90's, anytime you say "it's for the children" that's supposed to end all debate. Destroy the image of the cookie as something good, take the fun out eating a cookie, take the laughter out a little slice of childhood, and it's all to the common good?

The Age of Conformist Nonsense is upon us, and it is a sad day.

On Going Where 'No Man Has Gone Before"...
Oh no, not a Star Trek blog! Normally, I wouldn't stoop to such geekiness and publicly announce that next to WWII documentaries on the History Channel, I probably watch more Star Trek, per capita, than most people. And though it isn't current, I still feel a need to complain somewhat about the original and it's offspring.

The original Star Trek was a creature of it's time, blending the prevalent Sci-fi themes with the politics of the 1960's, all surrounded by a lame future-art-decco aura. Look hard enough and you will find a lava lamp in Mr. Spock's quarters. The initial foray into multi-culti pap was evident; a Japanese helmsman, Scottish chief engineer, African communications officer, Russian navigator, Vulcan (alien) science officer. Note, however, that the blowhard who kept it all together was American, a midwesterner, played by a Canadian, no less.

It reflected the mores of it's time: women in short mod skirts with knee-length boots --- this was considered the height of sexy in the day, and it worked on some of the Star Trek babes. Half naked, alien women willing to help Capt. Kirk through full rut, reeked of taboo. The notion of alien pre-marital sex was considered racy, I guess.

Star Trek gave us a glimpse into our future -- you will find the forerunners of the cell phone, the floppy disk, amazing medical progress, voice-reponse-capable computers, vido conferencing. Even the Shuttlecraft is eerily reminiscent of the SUV -- a boxy, all-purpose vehicle capable of hauling just about anything and anyone, but not really all that utilitarian at the same time. It did little to show how all this technology affected mankind, except to brag that they had created a society without 'want'. Socialism dressed up as entertainment, to a certain extent.

The show tackled the issues of it's day: civil rights, anti-war protests, overpopulation, creeping, world government, interracial relationships, humanity's inhumanity. Watching the original shows, you get several impressions: it's campy, over the top for it's day, brave and bold and occasionally, silly. In short, it summed up the 1960's very nicely; people kept trying new things but kept coming up with the sme problems. It became incredibly repetitious. If it wasn't for the occasional masterful performance by Leonard Nimoy (let's face it --- it's hard to do that stuff with a straight face, imagine trying to do it with no emotion at all), the show would have all the allure of a Congressional Hearing on the Crisis of Tooth Decay. Still, it was entertaining.

Fast forward to the 1990's, when we get the updated version, The Next Generation, which set out to destroy stereotypes with a vengance; French Captain with a backbone, blind engineer, sentient androids that somehow get definied as living organisms because they merely felt that way. It has those other touchy-feely aspects that made life somewhat disgusting in the 90's; a ship's counselor, ensuring that enough psychobabble was injected into every episode, a boy-man techno-genius intended to ratify Whitney Houston's theory that 'children are our future'. This new Star Trek added the quintessence of the 1990's; a call for a return to family values (the crew brought their families aboard, causing stresses --- just ask Worf, Troi, and Dr. Crusher,-- as they struggle to juggle career with the demands of parenting and familial bonds), moral relativism with it's repeated paeans to the Prime Directive (i.e. do no harm unless by doing harm you increase the power and reach of the state, i.e. thge Federation). When the shallowness of the series became too evident (after say, five episodes) the writers simply threw out technospeak, theorhetical physics beyond the capacity fo the audience to understand, a few cameos by the stars of the original, and occasionally picking up a loose thread from the original series and following it to it's (I'm sorry) logical conclusion. All in all, a pale shadow of the original with more whiz-bang gadgets. After 30 seconds, it usually devolved into the Commander Data hour (btw, Brent Spiner is a consumate actor).

The show progressed (or is it regressed?) to more 90's-oriented themes with Deep Space Nine. The Federation acts as U.N. Nation-builders in a place reminiscent of Somalia or Afghanistan --- a planet wracked by war, with no natural resources and anchored by slavish devotion to a barely-understood, falatistic religion. We see other 90's icons in this show: the corrupt, greedy businessman who sometimes, despite himself, manages to do good (Ferenghi, btw, is a rendering of an old Hindu word that was used to describe the British East India companymen), the outsider (Odo, the unknown shapeshifting, alien entity who cannot even tell you about his origin, but is always on a quest to 'find himself'). Along the way, we're introduced to more multi-culturism than we can stand: science officer with an implanted creature inside her, more Klingons than you can shake a stick at, a station where three million different aliens mix in somewhat-peace, an Arab doctor, a female, Amazon-like freedom fighter, an finally, a black commander.

It got old as soon as it aired. We were that jaded by then.

Followed up by Star Trek: Voyager, in which Kate Milgrew leads an even more mixed crew through a galaxy that she just happened to get them lost in. Captain Janeway was the epitome of the 90's woman: seemingly strong, yet capable of bawling if she broke a nail, and so headstrong that she refused to stop and ask for directions. All the hallmarks of the gender-confused society. We see a protest against HMO's with a holographic doctor. We're treated to a hot Borg-Human combination that emulates the 90's ice princess to a T. Just to remind you that you are, indeed, watching Star Trek, we're treated to a Vulcan, and a black Vulcan at that. Diversity just doesn't extend to other worlds, it's invaded them as well.

And finally, we come to the worst of the series, Enterprise, an attempt to emulate Star Wars by making the series into a "prequel". I watched it exactly 4 times. It was that bad. Except for the very sexy female Vulcan with an iron rod shoved up her ass, it was thoroughly not memeorable. Another 90's rage: throwbacks.

And somehow, I can't help but think that Star Trek will have yet one more permutation in it's future. Perhaps they'll call it Star Trek: Legacy, in which we'll trace the unintended consequences of all the previous shows. We'll see what happens to the string of illegitimate children scattered around the galaxy by Kirk. Perhaps we'll see Vulcans degreaded by Earth culture in the same way the French complain they are corrupted by American. Perhaps the Federation will become as contentious as Republicans and Democrats arguing over a judicial appointment, leading to dueling press releases and sound bites which ultimately say nothing. Maybe, just maybe, if we're lucky, we might even see a show that does away with the touchy-feely philosophy, heavily laced with scientific crap.

BTW, I felt compelled to write this because I've just watched two incredibly bad episodes of DS9, and came away with the reinforced notion, that as always and in all things, nothing matches the original. Even whent he original wasn't all that great, nostalgia still builds it up to be more than it was.

May You Live in Interesting Times...
The closest thing to a cuss word or phrase in Ancient China was the retort, "May you live in Interesting Times". It was a double-edged sort of phrase: it denoted a sincere wish that life not be boring for you, and also indicated that the well-wisher would like to see you hanging from a tree with your throat slit. Preferably after you'd been gang-raped by Mongols.

We live in some pretty interesting times right now. I call them interesting not because all of of what I'm about to spout about draws my attention in the same ways as, say, a hockey game, but because every one of the things on my list makes me shake my head at the density of the human skull. What I mean to say is, it's interesting because it's so obviously stupid, yet a good number of my fellow human beings just don't get it.

Interesting things:
- A woman (I think) who has been up to her eyeballs in illegal business dealings, refused to submit evidence that was subpoenaed by a court of law, who has no obvious qualifications, and who has ridden her husband's coattails while championing the cause that women are strong, independent, capable members of the human species, just might be a candidate for the highest office in America in 3 years. What's even worse is that in the face of some catastrophic event, she just might win. Hypocrisy notwithstanding, how anyone could buy the load of garbage this woman is selling is beyond me. It leaves me frightened at the thought of mankind's future and very existence.
- As we speak, a certain Congressman from Texas is being pilloried for a) doing something that is not illegal, b) doing something that, at this time, 34 of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle have also done, c) professing Christian faith, d) having the poor taste to thumb his nose at the press. This despite the fact that his detractors insist that every one is innocent until proven guilty, bewail the lack of "bi-partisanship", and that many of their pantheon of Olympian heroes have done worse. No evidence of wrong doing has been presented and no one has brought charges or a lawsuit against the man. Instead, this case is being tried in the court of public opinion, and in the hallowed halls of the House ethics Committee, which has ALWAYS been known for honesty and fairness. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

- Right now, a corrupt United Nations, a supposedly altruistic institution, is trying to explain why: a) it's executives stole billions of dollars meant to help starving people, b) how despotic regimes currently engaging in genocide happen to be it's point-men on Human Rights, c) why it runs brothels in about 14 different regions of the world, d) why it is still relevant or even useful. In the meantime, despite the evidence to the contrary there are those screaming that such a despicable organization not only should continue to exist, but it should be funded to the hilt and consulted more often. Yes, I always go to thieving, hypocritical, child molesters when I need sage advice.

- At the present time, people who hate Christianity are preparing strategies to co-opt Christian doctrine and values in a cynical ploy to get elected. To these people, to be a Christian is to be an unthinking automaton, a puppet of the Pope or your nearest televagelist, and that your head is so addled with "Thou shalt not.." That they might be able to con you into believing that they, too, believe the same things. They are doing this because they believe that Christians are now the key to electoral triumphalism, and haven't once stopped to think that perhaps they lost because their candidates and ideas are unpalatable. When in doubt, blame someone else for your mistakes. Do not be surprised to hear certain bloviating, murder-suspect Senators from New England, almost-convicted criminals from New York and fading-ex-hippies from California reciting the 23rd Psalm three times a day in the coming year.

- Right now, Jane Fonda is hoping to re-write history and erase memories as she hawks a book and a movie. She hopes to explain away her treason, her poor taste and her stupidity as the legacy of a mis-spent youth on the one hand, while continuing to believe that people are quite so dumb as to actually give her the benefit of the doubt on the other. Unfortunately, those that watch Larry King will swallow this hook, line and sinker.

- A few weeks ago, a living, breathing human being was starved to death by court order, yet convicted sex offenders walk around by the grace of the courts, raping and murdering several children in the last few weeks. On the opposite coast, a celebrity child molester is attempting to convince a jury that two dozen witnesses against him, witnesses he so obviously tried to buy off, are all lying when they say he molested them or their children. He is given even more latitude than your typical pedophile simply because he happens to be famous. Or is it infamous now? In the meantime, we agonize and debate as to whether or not sexual offenders should be tracked with GPS devices or have computer chips implanted in their skin. No stone, apparently, will go un-turned in the not-too-vigorous-defense of our children. No court in the land can bring itself to recognize some crimes as too heinous to let it's perpetrators live. Instead, we argue about the perp's "rights" and "comfort".

- A week ago, a Royal wedding between the two ugliest people in Britain got more attention than the crisis that faces this country due to unprotected borders. Private citizens who decided to volunteer to protect borders the government will not, were not congratulated, but instead castigated by jealous federal unions, so-called "liberals" and the press. God forbid anyone in this country should do anything so gauche as to uphold the law. Especially the people who are charged with writing and enforcing it.

Art For Hate's Sake...
Re: the recent exposition of so-called art known as the Axis of Evil, or the Axis of Sin, or somesuch nonsense. If you haven't heard about this exposition, I'll fill you in. Someone (I really couldn't care who) decided it would be a good idea to express his/her or his/her organization's political views in art. The art in question took the form of several portraits on postage stamps.

These portraits included: President Bush with a pistol held to his head, and an airliner crashing into a skyscraper, a cheery little piece intended to convey the idea that New Yorkers were really just begging to have 3,000 of their own incinerated, pulverized and atomized on 9/11/2001.

Conservatives, or merely the patriotic and straight-thinking are supposed to just sit here and accept such idiocy based on torturous definitions and interpretations of the First amendment, and the stigma attached to being a minion of the government censors. We have our sensibilities tormented on a daily basis by sick little people with twisted minds who will take advantage of the freedoms our society creates and defends for silly purposes.

What is art? I'm not qualified to say. Quite frankly I don't particularly care. I do know that art, while it can be an awesome symbolic expression of the human spirit and societies norms, is not something that merely shocks and offends, which seems to be the entire thrust behind most art these days -- it's supposed to make you think. Art like this does make me think: it makes me think that the people who created it are absolutely infantile. The audience that laps it up is perhaps infinitely more infantile, bordering on zygote-level awareness, if that is possible.
Of course, anyone who disagrees with me will have a ready store invective to hurl in my direction: Philistine, Cretin, Moron, Uncultured lout, Nazi, Fascist, American and of course the most stinging rebuke they can think of, Republican. People who find nothing wrong with advocating the murder of the President or of 3,000 of their fellow citizens, in fact, those who celebrate such things, of course would scream like school girls if the shoe was on the other foot.

If I was, for example, to create a postage-stamp like portrait that showed Ward Churchill being escorted to the gallows by pregnant women, surrounded by a cheering crowd, I'd be accused of being a vicious psychopath. If I created a portrait of Hilary Clinton being rendered limb-from-limb by rabid baboons, while Bill stood in the background having a hearty belly laugh, I'd be accused of being a hater or worse. If I posted a painting that mimicked the famous "Evolution of Man" that went from obviously campy homosexual to leather-wearing S&M aficionado and progressed all the way to scab-infested, emaciated gray AIDS victim corpse with festering pustules, I'd be a borderline lunatic homophobe. How about if I painted a saintly Terri Schiavo wielding the hammer of justice over the head of Teddy Kennedy, with a heavenly choir behind her and a winking Jeb Bush in the upper right hand corner? Why, they'd have my feeding tube removed by court order.

I guess your level of pain depends on what your sacred cows happen to be.

I object to the pictures because they do not reflect my point of view, for sure, but also because they are in extremely poor taste and so obviously designed to appeal to the mindless, the primal and the ridiculous that they inspire a sense of cynicism. You just KNOW by looking at them that these things were directed at the stupid. It's an insult to the intelligence of the average person. It's the shallow masquerading as the enlightened. It's almost because it's intended to be art that it automatically follows that it is art. If we can classify art by saying it's what I say it is today, then the hairball my neighbor's cat spent half the night coughing up should be in the Louvre this afternoon. Anything that nearly kills a cat before it's finally expelled is a thing of beauty in my eyes. The difference is that I'm expected to simply take it, while they get to claim the luxury of bruised sensibilities. Part of this is simply the media being sympathetic with the idiot -- after all, if it wasn't for stupid people there'd be no media. The other part of it is the way in which American freedoms operate: it might be wrong, it might be inane, it might be utterly lacking in any redeeming quality, but so long as it isn't strictly illegal, is not an immediate threat to life and limb, and you can stretch the definition of intellectual to cover it, it's okay. Larry Flynt makes money this way every day.

We used to have 'art for art's sake', but that's now become 'art for hate's sake', or even 'art for the sake of throwing a temper tantrum'. Which is what this is. The person or people who created these things is frustrated. He/she is frustrated that Mommy and Daddy were not sufficiently accommodating in getting them that pony. They're frustrated that their breast feeding was stopped too soon. They're extremely frustrated to learn that not only does the world not believe or think the same things that they do, but that their own insignificant voices get fainter everyday --- on all matters. The people who create such things are not true artists in the sense that a Michelangelo or a Picasso were artists. Their thrust is so obviously commercial and so assuredly produced for the lowbrow that to call it art is to elevate dirt way beyond it's station. It's a natural progression from the base to the baser to the sewer; piss in a jar, hang a crucifix in it, you have art. Paint a picture of the Virgin Mary and smear animal dung on it, it's art. Advocate a position that you cannot possibly support intellectually or morally in a childish manner, and somehow it's still art. There's a twisted, romantic notion of the revolutionary and misunderstood artist as genius which used to make great movies, but which doesn't produce successful artists in a society with rapidly changing mores and tastes.

Apparently, you have to be noticed as an asshole first in order to get noticed as an artist. You will be instantly forgotten as soon as the next biggest asshole comes along, and then the cycle repeats itself. It's no longer about art --- it's about being noticed. Hopefully to the tune of a lot of dollar signs before you overdose.

I'm guess I'm going stop positing for a bit because apparently you can't get enough attention blogging. Instead, I shall retreat to the bathroom, find a suitable picture of the third-world-communist-homosexual-dictator -cum-hero of the day (I'm thinking it's a toss up between Castro, Guevara or that fake Mexican-Indian poet, Rigoberta Picchu is it?), take a huge dump on it, and then paste a series of little pictures of Barney Frank and Richard Gere around it. I figure I'll either make a fortune on it or draw a lynch mob. Or perhaps just flies.

Rome Wasn't Built in a Day...
And neither will a new Iraq. Remember that the next time you flip on the news and are bombarded with reports of Iraqi's protesting the U.S. occupation in the same place they pulled down Saddam's statue two years ago.

One of the overriding themes of this weekend's news coverage from Iraq seems to be aimed at asking a very important question; We've been here two years already, and the Iraqi's have had their elections. They're starting to get pissed off again, so why haven't we gone home already?"
The question does have it's merits. However, since it's being asked by members of the media, they are missing the real point.

Democracies are not built in a day. Just because Iraqis have had a democratic election, monitored and certified by every world monitor imnaginable, does not mean they have a democracy. Democracy is more than an election --- it's a state of mind. It's a culture. It is something that must evolve. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, after all.

Our democratic republic didn't spring to life in a vacuum on July 4, 1776 and begin operating without problems. American democracy was, initially, the logical extention of a process that had began in ancient Greece, filtered through the Roman Republic, encouraged by the signing of the Magna Carta, and was tempered by the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. By the time Americans got around to deciding it was, as Churchill said, the "least, worst form of government yet invented", democracy had evolved through many forms, been changed by many ideas and been influenced by history and philosophy.

The election in Iraq merely looked democratic, which is not to say that it wasn't fair, but that it had the trappings that most modern Westerners shallowly associate with democratic process; people debated and then they voted.

However, the underlying motives and philosophy of democracy have yet to take root in Iraq. Mainly this is because Islam still rules nearly everything a Middle Easterner does. Islam has never had it's Reformation, it's Enlightenment or it's Magna Carta. The true measure of a democracy is not it's forms or methods, but it's cultural foundations. Those foundations include, but are not limited to, a respect for law, the respect of an individual, the belief that rights are inherrant, that life is not connected to the spiritual by an umbilical chord that is merely more of an impediment to free thought. Those characteristics are the true Western tradition of democracy. The best example I can think of in modern times of an evolving democracy would be Japan, circa 1850 to modern times.

When Commodore Perry entered Tokyo Bay to open trade and passage agreements with the Japanese they had been unknown entities for the better part of 300 years. Japan, isolated by choice, rigidly stratified by a feudal social system and tethered to the traditions of the past, was shocked by Perry's entry and by the obvious power he represented. One glance westward towards China convinced the Japanese that the only way they could beat the foreigner was to become the foreigner. Quickly.

And so, after the Meiji Reformation of the 1870's, Japan emerged with a facade of Westernism: it created a professional standing army and navy, It began to industrialize. It copied democratic forms and parties, it expanded out into Asia acquiring colonies, and became an economic powerhouse in it's own right. Right through the process, the Japanese adapted thier native genius to solve problems connected with the importation of foreign ways into an ancient culture.

However, fledgling, Western-style Japan did not make the great leap forward that Westernization seemed to represent. The reason was that Japanese society, as a whole, while welcoming the rise in the quality of life, the infant freedoms provided, the higher standards of living and production, never completely shed tradition. Japan might look western, but it truly was not. There was no free press. Individualism was seen as a sin. Creative expression was stifled if it deviated too far from accepted social norms. Emperor worship still existed, a religious anchor which operated very much in the same way that slavish devotion to Islam does in the modern Middle East.

In the end, it took a World War, nuclear holocaust, occupation and the untold suffering of millions, Japanese and others, to teach the Japanese a valuable lesson: it was not enough merely to mimic the outward signs of democracy and western-style life, they had to go all the way and become westerners in their thinking and outlook as well. Once freed of the militarists who used tradition and nationalism as a tool of looking western while avoiding true western freedom, Japan was well and truly on it's way to entering the modern world.

It's a process that is still going on. Yes, there are still traditions in Japan that reach back into it's ancient past, the geisha girl is to Japan what the pin-up is to Americans. Sumo is their baseball. Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Christianity exist side-by-side in Japan just as peacefully as they do here. The state religion of Emperor worship was abolished. Business became Japan's new leap forward and they found that in order to compete and excel, they needed to emulate and adopt western idosyncracies; free debate, public audit, respect for the individual, the value of even contradictory opinions, empirical research unrestrained by religious or state interference.

It took Japan roughly 80 years to reach that realization. It's too much to expect Iraqis to get it in two.

It is, however, not too much to expect for the American media, and alas, it's people, to realize this. But then again, we are a people mostly ignorant of history, unless it invloves RBI's or Academy Awards. What one has to remember about the new American initiatives in the Middle East is that we are still in the very earliest stages and that there are bound to be growing pains. According to many of the reports I've seen regarding the recent unrest, Iraqis are genuinely glad to be rid of Saddam, hate the insurgants as much as we do, and most of the discord is linked to the apparent trickle of American largesee (i.e., we haven't shoveled enough money in to the local economy in order to give it a kick start). An Iraqi waiting two years for American money to rebuild his house or business is bound to be upset.

Bear in mind one thing when you watch anything on TV regarding Iraq, Afghanistan or the nascent democratic movements in Lebanon ; these are going to be particularly tricky, often nasty, sometimes comic attempts to come to terms with a culture and a lifestyle that is totally foreign to these people. It's not going to be easy. We're not just changing a government in Iraq, we're attempting to change a culture that stretches back a very long time.

Bonfire of the Absurdities...
The two ugliest people in Britain just got married today. Fortunately, to each other.

I cannot pretend to know much, nor care much, about the soap opera that revolves around Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles (by the way, does her name now become Parker-Bowles-Windsor?). I'm not at all eager to get caught up in the Diana-vs.-Camilla debate, only because I'd have taken Diana to the woodshed and made a proper woman out of her, if you get my drift. Besides, the whole thing seems rather stupid. Diana is dead, unfortunately, and whatever you might think about how sad and tragic the whole episode was, you have to remember that the woman worked her way up to potential-Queen-of-England and lived a life of royal luxury. The most tragic part of Diana's story is that she managed to get killed in France. If given the choice, I'd rather die in a filthy back alley in Khartoum of blood poisoning brought on by an infected flea bite.

Be that as it may, somehow, a Royal Wedding still holds fascination for the American public 230 years after we broke away from the Monarchy. The closest thing we have to the Royal Family here is the Kennedy Clan, and other than one tragic and one well-deserved death (you decide which was which) , we only keep watching because the Kennedy's keep finding strage ways to die. We must be interested since the wedding took up the majority of the morning airtime on all the major 24-hr cable networks.

Which leads to an interesting (to me, anyway) psychological question: despite the fact that we are a pluralistic, democratic, non-monarchial republic, populated by people who can trace their ancestry back to every shithole on the planet, why is it that we will stop dead in our tracks to watch a Royal Wedding, and dissect every moment of it as if it were the Super Bowl? Why this continued fascination with Royalty?

The closest explanation I can come up with would have me laughed out of any reputible bar within 200 miles, but here it goes. It has to do with the differences between men and women. Mind you, I'm not a doctor and I have a few screws loose, so I could be talking out of my ass for all I know. But like I've said before, this is my blog and I'll let my mental flotsam and jetsom out whenever I want to.

If you're a man, you watch a Royal Wedding because here's a future King, one of the richest and most powerful men on the planet, and he's marrying something that looks like it was dragged out of the swamp by your labrador retriever. You watched him marry Diana because yo lusted after her and envy compelled you to try to figure out how a beuatiful girl like that hooked up with such a dweeb. She would have been much better of with you, you know.You watched because you were compelled to engage in that mental monologue about how even the ugliest people on the planet can get the finest babes, if they have money and fame. Envy is a perfectly normal human emotion, after all. Now, you watch and try to figure out how one of the most powerful and richest men on the planet managed to marry his high school lunch lady.

If you're a woman, then the whole Royal Wedding reinforces your fictions and fantasies about fairy princesses and Cinderella, with a smattering of romance-novel pomp and majesty added for good measure. Women watch and fantasize that, one day, although they may not be marrying an honest-to-God-heir-to-the-throne, that their own wedding day will be just like that;
Horsemen in livery, silver trumpets, red carpets, living in a palace, millions of eyes focused on HER, and to top it off, a man who can provide her with her every whim, and have it delivered on a silver platter by servants, no less.

Men watch to drool over the bride (not this one, of course), women watch to retreat into the world their mother told them existed (and that they deserved), but which really doesn't.

I just wish my choice of TV this morning wasn't between the Royal Nuptuals and Women's Curling on ESPN.

The Papal Peanut Gallery...
The fallout from the death of John Paul II is still settling, or should I say, beginning to get very unsettling.

From what I read today, the Germans, those stalwart catholics who brought us the Second Crusade, Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler, are beginning to make loud, obnoxious noises about wanting a more 'liberal' Pope. I'm sure this isn't the desire of all German Catholics, merely the ones that got to the media with a snazzy press release first, and which, thanks to the miracle of mass media, will now be presented as the collective will of all German Catholics.

Germany, for those of you who haven't been, is one of the weirdest places on the planet. It's a place where 40 year-old men with back hair slip into leather pants three sizes too small and wiggle as if they were the sexiest objects in the universe. It's a place where illicit sexual encounters in cemetaries are considered the proper way to cap a night out on the town. Germany is the place where prostitutes (steered onto this career path by Government Employment offices) are forced to join a union, whether they want to or not. The Germans are probably, as a whole, the most permissive society on the entire European continent as well as the second most disgusting (the French still hold that title).

What's really at work here, and not only in Germany, is that those who wish to live in a more secular, permissive society are always looking for other ways (besides crying and complaining a lot) to prop up their view of how things should be. Having a Pope that was more 'liberal' (i.e. a rubber stamp to behavior pooh-poohed by JP II) is just another way of making it happen.

Imagine, if you will, an inebriated man, dressed as a clown, caught in the act of screwing a daschund. In Germany, you have the right to do that, even if there is still a segment of the population that considers it wrong on moral grounds. If a 'liberal' Pope should suddenly decide that bestiality was not a sin, that freak could point to Papal acceptance of his deviance and avoid universal scorn. There would be less of a stigma attached to his disgusting behavior if one of the moral regulators of his society were to decide his perversion was not, in fact, a perversion.

And that is the whole idea behind a secular society to begin with: to remove stigmas.

Stigmas are nasty things to a liberal, interfering with the human imperative to engage in complete chaos because you felt like it. It's easy to be a liberal; you merely need to feel and react, rather than think about your actions and their consequences.

That's why the stigmas attached to homosexuality, abortion, birth control, euthanasia, and bestiality must be removed, by any means possible. It absolves one from having to deal with guilt, fear of being found out, censure by the community as a whole, and allows you to simply do as you please. Remember that phrase, "Do as YOU Please".

Once you begin to deconstruct the very carefully crafted 'unwritten laws' of society, you invite the unintended consequences. Once you remove the stigma from poverty, it's okay to be poor. Remove it from crime and suddenly no one is a criminal. Do as you please: rob a bank, kill Grand Ma before her cancer treatments ruin you financially, shoot heroin, engage in a 'lifestyle choice' that exposes you to AIDS, and finally, screw a pooch in a cemetary. It's okay because it will no longer be illegal, nor will we even look down upon you or even giggle anymore. The Pope said you could do it, so that makes it right.

These are the kinds of people who want to live in a world where there are no absolutes, except one --- the absolute that the individual is the Alpha and Omega, and screw the rest of you. It never occurs to them, however, that the rest of us, if we thought that way, would be individuals with the same agenda and that what goes around, comes around. They'd also be the first to kick, cry and complain when they are victimized by the very behavior they excuse or condone.

Never mind your 'liberal' Pope. I'd like another one just like the one we had.

Goodbye to A Great Man...
Watching the funeral of Pope John Paul II this morning, I was struck by an intense sadness, both at the passing of the man and at the apparent passing of tradition.

In the week prior to my main man shuffling off this mortal coil, the talking heads were all a-buzz about the possibility of the catholic Church changing it's doctrine and dogma to more easily conform to our ever-increasing secular society. To hear it, one would think that the biggest obstacle to changing an institution long in need of an overhaul was JPII Himself. You could almost see the salivation around the mouths of ex-hippy nuns, sort-of-but-not-quite-disgraced ex-priests, the usual crowd of loonies representing euthanasia, abortion and gay rights, as they plotted the new assault against the one institution that has, thus far, resisted their efforts.

A lot of chatter about married priests. More balloon juice about women priests. A slew of verbal diarrhea about the Church softening it's stand on brith control. Lot's of talk about a church that is expanding in the Third World electing a third-world Pope for the sake of diversity. It was disgusting to watch. The man wasn't even dead yet and they were already circling like vultures. When he finally died, then the nasty stuff came out. John Paul II, to these idiots, was the biggest impediment to true human utopia since Josef Stalin.

I'm not a theologian, and granted, I'm not even a practicing Catholic. But, I was brought up in the Church, educated in it's schools, and from where I sit, there's nothing wrong with it from the standpoint of what the Church preaches. Sure, there is a mess to be cleaned up in several areas: priests molesting children, the lack of parish priests, getting the laity more involved. These are issues of management, not doctrine.

Why should priests be married? Catholic doctrine states that a married priest has divided loyalties and thus, cannot serve God to his fullest potential. Becoming a priest is voluntary; there are no Shanghai gangs sitting in front of seminaries waiting for hapless victims to impress into service. If the argument is that a married priest is far less likely to turn to children for sexual gratification, then guess again. Pedophiles come in all colors -- even married. If the argument is that allowing priests to marry increases the likelihood that more young men will turn to the church as a career, because they will not have to sacrifice their personal happiness, then that cuts no ice, either. The main thrust of Catholic theology is sacrifice for the benefit of others in the name of love. What greater and more meaningful sacrifice could one make then to forego the happiness of marriage and family for the sake of serving others?

Female priests? You have a better chance of catching Jesus at the craps tables in Vegas. Two thousand years of precedent says no. But, the naysayers will point out, there are too few priests to administer to the faithful, why not allow women in to expand the available pool of labor? Considering that there are getting be just as few nuns as there are priests, I don't see the logic in the argument. In the last 40 years, between feminism, the sexual revolution, improving western economies, the "Me" generation of the 60's and 70's, women nowadays are more likely to take a career as a stripper (excuse me, exotic dancer, for the politically correct) than they are to join a convent. Modern, western women, in case no one noticed, sacrifice nothing for the benefit of others, unless they find themsleves in the unfortuante situation where they made the "wrong" choice to keep that bundle of cells until it was born. The last two crops of women have been brought up to believe they can have everything handed to them if the scream loud enough or withhold sex. Not exactly promising material for a future priesthood.

Gay priests? I don't have a problem with gay priests, per se. The problem is a gay priest unable to control himself. That's a human failing, not a structural one within the church.

At the end of the day, all these complaints about the sorry state of the church and JP II's role in creating them are merely extensions of the selfishness prevalent in modern society. The church made overtures to the wishes of society in Vatican II, and you can see where we wound up. The issue is not that he chucrh needs to change, but that society needs to. Crying that because ti won't ruins it for all the faithful on the planet is a massive case of sour grapes.

From where I sit, this church is in awesomely good shape, as far as what it offers to people. When 4 million-plus people show up for the funeral of man who's now being dragged through the mud by those who do so with no fear of retribution, that tells me more than their diatribes do. The amazing thing was the incredible number of younger people present. Despite what secular society tells them they're supposed to do, these young kids connected with this older man, this so-called dinosaur of tradition.

The Church was here long before John Paul II, and will survive his passing, lessened in leadership, I think, but still having more to offer than Survivor and American Idol. JP II, after all, is a hard act to follow. But what has been lost is merely a great leader, not the mission. This is not the time to tear down what the man built, but perhaps to sit back and appreciate it all the more.

God rest his soul and keep him in peace.