The Bloogy

Modest aims

2006-09-18T20:52:00.000-07:00

Here is the most compelling (of many, many compelling quotes) I've run into today regarding the recent words of the Pope:

Al-Qaida in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world, and Iran's supreme leader called for more protests over the pontiff's remarks on Islam.

From here

Yet they want the Pope to appologize for stating that Islam has violent tendencies?

Edward's Faith (1 of 3)

2006-09-12T13:16:00.000-07:00

I do appologize if anyone has been checking this blog for the last few months as I've been getting hitched and moving. It all went off without a hitch (save actually getting hitched). I'm quite happy and everything is going well--I am very much enjoying having the wife here and working from home. Can't beat it.

On a bit more of a blogging note, I have been trying to get back into doing creative writing. For anyone who has done much creative writing--you may be able to understand my plight... I currently work as a technical writer and I'm finding it quite difficult to shift gears.

So, in an attempt to dig deep and pull out some old writing habits, I've been rereading and revising some of my old short-stories I wrote 4-5 years ago. I still find several of them pretty interesting and the writing isn't too painful, so I have taken Forester's lead (he published a segemented short story a few months back) and decided to segment a few of them and post them here in case anyone is interested in offering feedback or just for general posterity.

Enough preamble:

Edwards Faith (1 of 3)

His mother came home late. She was often late, that was nothing unusual, but this night Edward felt uneasy. It was six o’clock when he turned on the television. He had expected her by five-thirty. The first thing he saw was aerial footage of a wreck on the freeway.

It looked as if someone had thrown a handful of his Matchbox cars into a heap. Some had their hoods crushed inward, others were blackened from fire; he could see the curling lines of the firemen’s hoses lying on the blacktop. He squinted as he looked at the compacted cars, trying to distinguish one from another. One car, primer gray, looked as if they may have been the same shape and size of his mother’s. The pit of his stomach burned.

With an abrupt transition, the news switched scenes; the weatherman pointed happily at a smiling sunshine.

Edward closed his eyes and saw the cars piled up. He examined them in his memory. He zoomed in and looked closer. His mind passed through the smoke and through the crumpled roof of the car. He saw his mother sitting there, blood trickling down the right side of her face, her head leaning to the side. Her eyes were open just enough so that he saw a glint of the orange flames reflecting in them.

In that moment, sitting on the edge of the couch with his hands holding his knees, Edward was sure that his mother was dead. He was certain of it. He had seen her. The car was hers. He could hear the squealing tires and feel the impact—the wreck replayed in his mind over and over again, every detail was there. It was utterly believable.

He opened his eyes and the vision faded. The acids in his stomach subsided and he consciously relaxed the tension in his hands, shoulders, and back. Now, he was sure she was safe.

He imagined that his mother had died on the freeway that night. But it was not only a thought—for that moment he was certain of it. As he saw her sitting there in her car, he believed it had happened—the scene was as realistic as his imagination could render it. And because of it, he was comforted—he knew that she was safe. Edward had outthought fate; he believed in the image of her death, and because he believed, the rules that governed his eleven-year-old world would not allow it happen.

Edward saw the world simply: it was built on fallibility. The best laid plans would go awry because of the unexpected. It was the unexpected that caused the failure of any venture. The solution was simple: if he thought of every possible thing that could go wrong, those things could not happen—everything would go exactly to plan.

His mother walked in the door ten minutes later to find Edward reclining on the

couch.

“So what’s for dinner?” he asked without looking up.

The next day, the space shuttle Challenger launched and exploded.

Edward came home from Saint Mary’s Elementary, flung his backpack into a corner and sat on the couch. He flipped on the television. Instead of cartoons, he found images of the shuttle taking off, rising, and falling apart.

That whole afternoon the scene was replayed. It was shown a hundred times from every angle. The newscasters and officials all shared the same confused shock at the failure of the launch. Edward watched for a while as they discussed the possible causes of the failure, he quickly lost interest.

Of course the Challenger had crashed. The failed arrogance of the officials was clear—they had not expected anything to go wrong. They were so secure in their success that they had not expected anything else. It was childish. He turned the channel, and, finding that the Challenger was on every station that his television’s rabbit ears could hear; he went to his room until his mother got home. Edward was annoyed by the loss of his afternoon cartoons.

Off getting married

2006-07-10T16:45:00.000-07:00

Goodtimes.

Folks I could vote for

2006-06-28T11:52:00.000-07:00

Here’s a new bit—

I’ve been watching both of these men lately and I am beginning to think that our country is getting to the point where it could use a stiff injection of their sort of politics.

First, I give you Sen. Barack Obama, the only black currently in the Senate (Yes, I support a Democrat, he's the only one who seems as if he actually knows what he believes. —I first became interested in Obama when he hit up the Daily Show a while back, admittedly, what first caught my attention was the obvious respect that John Stewart held for him. As time went on I’ve read bits and pieces about him and really have come to like a lot of Obama’s stances (though I may not agree with them personally, I respect and like his approach, which is as much as I think I can ask for in a politician.)

Some quotes from a recent CNN article:

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,"' he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir."

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

Second, we have Kinky Friedman, the only country/folk singer running for Governor of Texas—My father put me on Kinky’s scent a while back, he’s an interesting guy who most likely strikes most as terribly liberal—which he is in many cases—though at the same time, I strongly agree with his version of Government and the role government should play.

Some highlights of Kinky’s platform:

Establishing a Trust for Texas Heroes, program to increase the salaries of teachers, cops, and firefighters through a 1 percent tax on oil and gas produced in Texas.

Kinky favors optional, non-denominational prayer in school. He believes there's nothing wrong with children believing in something even if it's a rock or a tree.

Kinky supports gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals. He believes that the constitution protects everyone. As he says, "I believe love is bigger than government. And besides, they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

The global altruists

2006-06-27T15:01:00.000-07:00

I hadn’t looked up my old friends at the Tehran Times for a while, so today on a lark I dug up the old link to see what they had to say—I was reading quickly through this article on combating the drug trade in Iran and the sirens started going off in the back of my mind…

For those who criticize America’s capitalist motivations in the world… I offer you the other side of the coin:

Dorri Najaf-Abadi underlined that Iran cannot succeed in the campaign against transit of drugs by itself, stating, "If Western countries refuse to render assistance to Iran, we will not allocate such a large volume of our human and financial resources to a task which inflicts losses on Iran, but yields profits for the world."

I think this is a very fine illustration of Iran’s stance on pretty much anything. It reminds me of all the drama around Palestine’s financial situation when the Muslim League could not agree to any set financial aid system to help out the Palestinians and blamed the West for pulling out support (yes, we want the world to be democratic, it doesn’t mean that we’re willing to underwrite everyone’s democracy!)

The urge to do right

2006-06-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

Oh dear lord…

Though I am frantically busy, I just read a quote out of an article which immediately roused me from my bloggogenic lethargy.

The U.S. Episcopal Church has recently elected Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to be the head of the Episcopal Church. A woman you say?—yes, and I do believe that having a woman at the head of a church is a fine thing. However—

When asked if she thought homosexuality was a sin, she replied:

”I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

Yes, and some people come into this world and have affections ordered toward making hat’s out of the skin of little girls, slaughtering Jews en mass or praising the Matrix 2-3. Does that mean that none of these things are perfectly acceptable under the Church’s doctrine?!?! (Okay, the Matrix comment has nothing to do with the church--they are just terrible, terrible films written by folks who need to read more than the Idiot's Guide to Philosophy.)

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have several good friends who are homosexuals, and though, yes, I do believe it is a sin; I do not believe that it is any different from any of the sins I commit on a daily basis. After all, that is what the Bible teaches—that all sins are forgivable save the one mortal sin: Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. (And that’s a whole other conversation.) Though homosexual acts make me uncomfortable, I am not going to hate my friends because of how they live their lives. I know I do plenty of things which would make those more conservative than myself to recoil.

But Schori’s statement is hugely problematic. Her rational for why homosexuality is not a sin is based upon her claim that “some people come into this world with affections ordered toward X” and that because they have that innate tendency, that that tendency is not sinful. Philosophical integrity anyone? The precedent that that idea carries with it is completely based in a humanist moral relativity—and one thing that is not part of the Christian belief system is moral relativity.

She is getting the message wrong. The message should not be that “homosexuality is not a sin,” it should be that the sin is no different from everyone else’s vanity, greed, selfishness and lies.

So much for the Episcopals.

Other people's words

2006-06-16T16:09:00.000-07:00

Well, my excuse for extreme laze is that I'm about to move and get married and pretty much completely alter my life (for the better).

But, though I have not had much to add to humanity, I have been doing quite a bit of reading. With that in mind, I have added links to a few blogs that I have been frequenting. (see right-panel)

Polimom Says - Poli brings up some very good discussion topics, and just has a whole lot of taste and style. A very honest (and in my opinion) American outlook.

Seedlings - I ran into Forester when he and I separately posted nearly the same thing on Polimom's two different blogs. She referenced us to each other and I've really enjoyed his stuff. Some very excellent writing. Forester pulls in a great group of very intelligent folks into topics ranging from Religion to Middle-School.

Blogorrhea - For your daily fix of philosophical/theological discussion, the discussions often frustrating and eyebrow raising, but nearly always interesting.

The Peddler of Bombast - Well, mostly I hope this blog get's populated. I'm attempting to encourage one who has far--far more experience in crafting his thoughts than I to blogify.

Hazardous Content

2006-05-28T10:21:00.000-07:00

Through a friend of a friend of a friend… the following email found its way to me from a member of the US Navy currently stationed out in ‘some country’ in the Middle East:

You know how everyone is in an uproar because Iran is denying the Holocaust? Well, they're not the only ones. Right here in the Pearl of the Gulf, from where the Navy is launching it's war on terror and fighting for democracy in the Middle East, we have a little touch of "free speech" Muslim style. I went to see "X-Men 3" last night and there was a scene edited out (at least one that I caught). Was it a scene showing nudity? No... Maybe a strongly suggestive scene with heavy sexual overtones? No.... Were they bashing on Arabs, Muslims, or everyone's favorite cartoon character, Mohammed? No, no, no...! Magneto saying SOMETHING (I'll have to wait for the DVD to find out what) about the Holocaust and his time in Auschwitz? BINGO! “

Though I wasn’t too hot on going to see X3 after seeing marginal reviews, I couldn’t resist, so I went and caught it on Saturday.

Low and behold, for anyone who has seen the movie, there is one small scene where mutants are asking Magneto to “show his sign” (they are all walking around with tattoos and such). Magneto’s response is to pull up his shirtsleeve and reveal the number assigned to him during his internment in WW2. (For anyone not terribly familiar with the histories of X-men, if you watch the beginning of the first one—I think it was the first—you will see Magneto as a child being separated from his parents by the Nazis).

Anyhow, I think that the extent of the cultural ‘editing’ going on over there was interesting and worth note.

Da Vinci

2006-05-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

Since everyone sluck who can yield a keyboard is weighing in on the endless debates surrounding The Da Vinci Code, I thought I would toss out a reflective note.

I finished the book last night. Technically, I consider it standard fare for commercial fiction. Written like an episode of "24," it's based on a quick episodic style that, though not brilliant, works well enough for the depth of content he presents. His research? Pretty good, though most people do not seem to pickup on exactly where the joint between research and conjecture lies--there is a lot of hubub about what all of Brown (the author's) claims regarding the history of the church may mean...

Brown is making no claims, he's a fiction writer.

That was easy enough now wasn't it?

Like my father pointed out, there are two words on the cover of the book which are essential to unraveling it's mysteries: "A Novel"

Though I think I will point out what I think is the single potent point (the story itself disappointed, saw the big twist coming a few miles away.

TIP: When writing a suspense-mystery story with a 'who done it' involved--make sure you have a few characters to choose from. The process of elimination and a very short menu made the selection of the book's villain less than academic.

Enough wandering: there is one great point the book does make, both in it's text and in the media today, and it's a point that anyone who bothers to read my drivel will see time and time and time again (and I fully admit, I steal it largely from Max Weber)-- every rational institution of man (any organized system) will corrupt any original inspirational source (spirituality, AKA Religion).

The Church has laid layer and layer of mortar and brick over the original stories of Christ--just as every great point of brilliance in history has been built upon and thus corrupted. The second we begin to make some paranoic thing into the center of a belief system, or school of thought--it becomes corrupted and the core is lost and can only be accessed through deviance.

Huge Balls

2006-05-01T15:14:00.000-07:00

Yes its been a long time since I've posted--but it's not like anyone reads this anyway!

There are much better things to read-- like this the transcript of Stephen Colbert's recent bit which he gave at the presidential press dinner with all of the press and the president in attendance.

Sunday Morning Blues

2006-04-11T15:13:00.000-07:00

Warning-this one is actually bordering on preaching, though I tend to play a middle ground, being able to admit and embrace my own bias is an important part of being a moralist-writer in my opinion.

As good ol' Huck Fin would argue, having to get into your Sunday best and getting dragged to church on Sunday morning is something that, at one time or another, most folks (young and old) have dealt with. To the young, disinterested, or guilty, going and sitting through a sermon on a crisp Sunday morning can be torturous.

But you know--it could be worse, or even a lot worse (for the lazy, those are links to two stories, one regarding the 44+ people who were killed in a suicide attack at a Muslim meeting and another of 29 people who were trampled to death at a celebration marking Muhammad’s birth.)

Now, this coming weekend, as we look toward Easter, I would like to make a point:

I was speaking with a friend of mine yesterday who was arguing that all religions are innately the same--that Muhammad, Buddha and Jesus all taught messages that are essentially based upon the same universal set of morals and values. He has a point--to an extent.

There is a marked difference in the "metaphysics" of the religions. Most directly being that Muhammad laid down the law--he taught his people how to live, to take their pilgrimages, what to fight for, how to treat their women and so on.

Jesus argued against the law. Though nearly every church teaches the New Testament as moral Law--if we believe what Jesus taught, this is faulty. He did not replace one law with another. He created a religion where the moral rules of how to live your life are secondary to the condition of faith. He changed the cause and effect from the idea that "following the law makes you righteous" to "those who are righteous will try to follow the law."

Yes I know--Details! Details!

My point is that I think anyone who celebrates Easter should try to take a moment and see this difference between Christianity and Islam--for it is an important difference. And then look at the difference between the church you sometimes get dragged to, and the churches that these people in the Middle East are being dragged from. They are no different from you or me on a personal moral level. They have the same sorts of problems, the same worries and whatnots--but the difference is the fundamental ideal of how the moral world operates.

A is for Apple, B is for... Moses?

2006-04-10T13:57:00.000-07:00

Gweneth Paltrow has had a second child!

For those of you who keep track of this sort of hooey, she named her daughter Apple.

Just the other day she gave birth to her second child and first son, and named him Moses.

Now, I love theological references and biblical names as much as the next guy, but does she have ANY idea what she's doing?!

First, we have to assume that she knows the biblical connotations of BOTH of these names. I mean yeah, she's a blonde, and yeah, she's a movie star--two traits not often associated with the fine art of observation and analysis, but come on!

In the bible, the apple is the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil--it creates conscience and, with it, creates sin--as people suddenly know that good and bad exist. Not the best day for mankind, let me tell you.

Now Moses--he delivers the law. A law which is constantly broken and, in the Christian tradition, proves to be morally unattainable and results in the condemned and fallen nature of all mankind.

What sort of screwed up legacy does that woman want for her children?! Money says her next one is a boy that she names Saul and then another girl named Judas. It would round out her collection of some of names from the most tragically sin-plagued people from the bible.

The Gospel of Judas

2006-04-07T09:14:00.000-07:00

Anyone glancing over headlines today has seen plenty on the Gospel of Judas (See "Click to explore the lost Document, and then view the PDF-English version if you're interested in reading it). The articles are lovely, full of conjecture about how the new Gospel will shake the core of Christian faith, other conservative sources are condeming it as blaspheme.

Few are reading it.

Natural Geographic has their hands on it at the moment and a look around their "Lost Gospel Supersite!" (Yes, that's what it's called) will quickly reveal that they hope to make a profit off the publicity for this thing. I read through it, though there are chunks of the text and a number of words within it missing, you can get the basic idea.

Early on in the book we have this line:

When Jesus observed their lack of [understanding, he said] to them, “Why has this agitation led you to anger? [b]Your god who is within you[/b] and […] [35] have provoked youto anger [within] your souls. [Let] any one of you who is [strong enough] among humanbeings bring out the perfect human and stand before my face.”

Stop. Stop RIGHT there. Obviously, I added the bolding for emphasis. As any attentive Sunday schooler would know--Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to man AFTER his death. As John 15:26 says:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

I'm just a closet theologist, but I would say that the new Gospel of Judas, right there at the beginning, shows a quick, easy, and irrevocable contradiction. It was composed after the fact. Say what you will about contradictions within the New Testament--but they tend to be on the finer points. The broad strokes of Christian Metaphysics (AKA the entrance of the Holy Spirit and the departure of Jesus) are consistent. According to everything I've ever read, was no spirit dwelling within any man before the death of Jesus.

Aside from that, a read through the rest of Judas rings of Greek/Roman mythology. For anyone who has gone down the path of Greek and Roman philosophy will pretty quickly see a very similar sort of tone. Legions of angelic beings coming into existence, a quick and dirty pantheon of divine beings that are above our human generation in which Jesus laughs mockingly at the Disciples' lack of knowledge and understanding with the arrogance of a Roman God in a scenario where humans are a sub-race.

It was an interesting and sloppy fusing of the story of Christ with the stories of Ovid. I would guess written by some Gnostics who received bits and pieces of the story of Christ and fused them with their existing beliefs. It isn't rocket science, and it certainly doesn't look as if it belongs in the Gospel.

A Question of Responsibility

2006-03-27T13:19:00.000-08:00

I just ran into an article regarding the condition of Christianity in Afghanistan. Good article. Fair, and some good information.

I thought that there was one bit of it that was particularly interesting.

Another Christian, whose house was raided four months ago by police looking for his Bible, feels lucky they never located evidence of his adopted faith. He says the United States needs to do more to ensure basic freedoms are enshrined in the new Afghanistan.

"I am thankful to the U.S. for removing the Taliban monsters," he said, "but it is America's responsibility to bring real democracy here."

Is it?

Even more provocative--what if we have? What if we have brought democracy, only to find that the vast majority of people believe they are justified by their God to kill Christians?

Oops. All that we have done is legitimize large groups of people who believe in intolerance by giving intolerant people the right to vote for those who uphold their intolerant beliefs.

America was not made with the help of liberators. It started in England--they left because reform simply was not working. The values that the colonists wanted to live by were unattainable in their home country--but they did try. And then they went to America and continued to struggle with England, and what did they do? They fought, they won, and they created a new order.

But as the would-be Americans left, Britain changed too--and changed for the better. The power of the Parliament increased as the power of the Monarchy waned and both nations were stronger for it. They were stronger because Britain dislodged the thorn in its side, and America got out from under the umbrella of the British agenda.

Both countries were better for the division.

But now there is no New World to run to. And with 6.5 billion people, we're beginning to get a little crowded. So what now? We have no operable historic precedent. Bullocks.

Though one thing I am beginning to think--Democracy should be for those who fight for it. It is not a gift to bestow.

Uninspired

2006-03-24T08:40:00.000-08:00

The world has been uninspiring.

For me, keeping up with world events is like that, a constant undulation. The news is interesting, and then it just keeps on, more of the same, the world keeps turning and all of that.

And then sometimes, there just isn’t anything more I can add.

The recent story that a Christian convert in Afghanistan is being tried for his denunciation of Islam and may be put to death is a prime example.

"We respect all religions, but we don't go into the British embassy or the American embassy to see what religion they are following," said cleric Enayatullah Baligh at Kabul's main mosque.

"We won't let anyone interfere with our religion, and he should be punished," he said.

What can even a satirist say to this? This isn’t even Iran, this is Afghanistan, the country that we gave lives to for the sake of liberating them to bring more freedoms. Afghanistan is looked at as the “victory” that bush had before the debacle of Iraq. And now this, the government may kill a man because he is Christian. I’m guessing evangelism could be considered “interfering with” their religion—but this sort of practice is 400+ years old. It’s archaic—imagine if that sort of doctrine came into practice here in the U.S.—we would all die. Atheists killing theists, republicans killing democrats, everyone killing vegans…

Now of course, there is talk of other routes, they may proclaim the man to be insane and put him in an institution—I don’t know about you but I would think death may sound better than the inside of an Afghani insane asylum.

And then if we look back at Palestine, the country had democratic elections and they elected an organization that became famous for suicide-bombing women Israeli civilians.

Yay democracy.

My response to news like this is not a political one. Yes, there are plenty of political problems—things to get frustrated and outraged by. Should the US attempt to promote democracy around the world? Should we become an isolationist nation? But these questions are constant, if we were isolationist we would be having a slough of debates and liberal outcries for us to improve aid programs to countries suffering under tyrannical governments. If we ceased our military presence and focused only on aid, we would be taken advantage of and our aid workers lives would be in peril (and worse wars would ensue.) There will always be the conflict, there will always be the disagreement, it is how our country keeps going.

But countries, politics, economics and the world have always been in a state of conflict like this. Power struggles are not a symptom of our time. It’s been the same shit, different day since the dawn of civilization.

No, my response isn’t political, it’s spiritual, there’s nothing quite like seeing people act fanatically in the name of their deeply held beliefs that make me question if my own beliefs are as fanatical, or, maybe, if I need to be more zealous to help offset the fanatics that may upset the balance a bit too much.

Southpark vs. Scientology

2006-03-18T14:17:00.000-08:00

Here is a quote, precious, timeless, and funny as hell, from Trey parker and Matte Stone, creators of southpark:

So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!

Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!

Signed,

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu."

Nuggets of Truth

2006-03-15T09:54:00.000-08:00

I have two items this morning. One is rather sad, and the other is just plain interesting.

The first (and saddest) of the news, is that the inventor of the Chicken Nuget has passed away. Robert C. Baker--you lived the good life, you had a famous recipe for BBQ'd Chicken, and you, in your genius, brought something new and tastey into the world. We salute you, and you will be missed.

Though it will undoubtably ruin this solumn moment, my next item today goes back to our good friends writing at the Tehran Times. For anyone who may actually read my drivel, a few weeks ago I did a bit about an article that the Tehran Times published which was copied directly from a wingnut conspiracy theorist.

Today's article appears to have actually been written by Tehran's own! Good job guys for branching out into somewhat more original material!

Even more interesting, is that the article (in reality a short essay) is clearly written and makes some very valid, and very important points as to the nature of nations. The general philosophy set forth in the article is the idea that "some" nations require enemies, or the ideas of an enemy to survive and prosper. The essay contends (and in some ways very rightly so) that America creates enemies, and that Iran is it's hapless victim. Anyhow, time to get my hands dirty:

The article states that:

Hostilities between nations date back to time immemorial. In ancient times, we saw epic confrontations, such as the wars between the Persians and the Greeks and the Punic Wars between the Romans and the Carthaginians.

AH! At LAST! An educated writer who has studied some history...

The main question that arises is: Why have enmity and war always existed? Furthermore, why have some societies felt compelled to define their identity through their enemies? Do opposition of interests or lack of resources cause animosity? Is the existence of an enemy, or, if one does not exist, the creation of a phantom enemy, a vital necessity for all societies in the world?

Let's ignore for a second that "the main question" is really four questions--this writer is bringing up extremely important points. These are questions that don't get asked enough because most people would not like the answer. Personally, from my studies in history, social theory, philosophy and interactions with Scotsman and Hippies, I believe that yes--societies require an enemy. Democracy doubly so--our very government is built around conflict (conflicting powers of executive, judicial and legislative branches of government and the two-party system itself is what makes our Democracy able to adapt and persist.) And, since our system is built around internal conflict, we also require a uniting external conflict that gives our complex representative system a reason to work together as a cohesive whole. If we had world peace, we would have a total collapse of the world economic market (this is not a value judgment, this is an assessment.)

So the article asks an interesting question and the author knows a bit of history. Yippie.

Unfortunately, societies often do define their identity through their enemies, and a great number of societies experience an identity crisis when they have no enemy.

Now we see where this is going--and I have no inclination to argue with the writer's point. He has a point. From here the writer begins implying that America has began to link the idea of enemy to terrorists, and then links terrorism to countries to make them enemies. Even I will agree that this is exactly what the Whitehouse did running up to the Iraq war (though I agree with the war for what I think are the "real reasons" for it, I disagree completely with the rationale that was sold to the public--what I think the real reasons were is another matter.)

But here in the article we also have the sly rhetorical trick of connecting the enemy (America and the west) to negativity, while quietly implying that their own country has no blame.

The clash between Greece and Iran in ancient times was an authentic animosity, whereas the animosity between North Korea and South Korea is in some ways illusory, since the citizens of the two countries belong to the same ethnic group and have a common cultural background.

The writer goes on to say that the Cold War was unnecessary and that the US and the USSR had no reason to fight/fear each other (note the complete downplay of the importance of the Nuclear arms race as a justification for Iran's ambitions.) But before we get carried away with that...

Did they just say that the "clash between Greece and Iran in ancient times was an authentic animosity?" I've said it I think 3 times now in this blog, GO READ HERODOTUS! Herodotus, known as one of the first historians, wrote the history of the Persian War. I fully recognize that much of what's in the history is Greekized and moralized, the story about the Persian King going to an oracle and receiving the message that "if you invade Greece a great nation will fall" and misinterpreting that message to mean Greece when in reality it was his own nation is most likely completely fictionalized, and at best, heavily re-written. That being said, the descriptions of the war itself (and the history of the Peloponnesian war later written by Thucydides) tell a play-by-play tale of how the wars progressed. The Persian war, by all accounts, began with the Persian army sweeping across the countryside enslaving everyone in their path as they went to attack Greece.

An oracle claiming that if the Persians attack Greece is Authentic Animosity?

Is that kinda like "we are justified to cut the head off of anyone who draws cartoons of the prophet?"

Notice the clever trick here--associate America with the West, and the West with their cultural roots--the Greeks, and connect the middle-eastern cultures with their cultural roots, the Persians--and then validate the struggles/wars of the Persian heritage while at the same time, undermining the validity of the struggles/wars of your opposing tradition. Without even knowing it we have an image of all western nations as being warlike and reckless, creating enemies and defining themselves against a created image of their foes, while the middle eastern nations are the hapless victims.

Bullshit.

I will be the first to admit that the west IS dependent on the idea of the other and the enemy (it was the first thing I admited in this blog actually,) but seriously--the article does exactly what the article says that the west does. It creates an animalistic unreasonable warlike image of the enemy, while justifying your own culture and your own ways. Using history like this is a trick as old as writing (the Aeneid, the Legend of King Arthur, Beowulf, Star Wars...)

It's how the game is played. The truth: all countries are self serving and dedicated to self preservation. Our country cannot be justified, but neither can any other country. They are entities that operate in a system of relative morality, if you begin to judge them by a higher standard, every single one of them will fail. Hm, kinda like people. Imagine that.

Iranian Youth and Isaac Hayes

2006-03-14T08:09:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Day #1

The first up is from that great wordsmith, President Ahmadinejad of Iran!

They should be assured that through propaganda, political pressures and games they play nowadays such as issuing statements, making angry gestures…

This is the clearest description of how the U.N. approches a problem I have ever seen. Hat's off Mr. Ahmadinejad! I'm tempted to go add this to the Wikipedia.

Quote of the Day #2

Another one from that wacky President Ahmadinejad.

“Rest assured that the technology to produce nuclear fuel today is in the hands of the youth of this land and no power can take it back from us,” Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in northern Iran.

Ah, rest well world, Iran's nuclear technology is in the hands of the Iranian Youth. Hm, the idea that our Nuclear technology is in the hands of a man who can't quite pronounce nuclear doesn't sound quite as big of a deal now does it?

And finally Quote of the Day #3

Isaac Hayes gives the creaters of Southpark the shaft! Stating that--

"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honoured," he added. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."A recent episode of the programme sent up Tom Cruise and Scientology, which is also Haynes' religion, although he did not specifically mention that show in his statement.

To which Matt Stone, one of the co-creators of Southpark responded (pardon the British spellings):

"This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology," Stone told the Associated Press. "He has no problem - and he's cashed plenty of cheques - with our show making fun of Christians."Producers have yet to decide whether the Chef character will be axed or re-voiced.

A moment to investigate--A Scientologist maintaning double standards...

a slow response (that episode aired months and months ago)...

a very public figure making a statement...

Here is what really happened:

1. Hayes did the show, like he did every other show (all of which mock someone--God bless em.)

2. The Bank of Scientology took a few months to go through their legal options and found that no, they could not sue the creators of Southpark (either legally or they realized that the irony would just be far too great, personally, I never met a Scientologist who would have realized the hypocrisy or irony involved, so I'm assuming that they just realized they couldn't sue satirists for satiring.)

3. So, they began putting pressure on Hayes (through a nice little session where he probably had to work through his actions and confront how they were wrong to the greater cause), and pushed him to resign his position and make a public stand, or else risk not being able to continue advancement up the chain of cultish command.

Hence the delay in Chef's resignation and the particular wording of his quote--"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all time should be respected and honoured,"--which is completely typical lip service that Scientology pays to other beliefs, it's a standard spiel they recite to protect their asses from litigation--while at the same time, Hayes had no problem mocking every other religion and culture that Southpark has mocked (nearly all of them, many times).

Not so funny when it's your guy eh?

If we all could be so lucky...

2006-03-13T16:04:00.000-08:00

Busy busy...

Though I saw a news article--I've had this dream more than once!

And on a much different note-

I've had nightmares about this one...

A tale of a domestic spat in Mexico that ended with a shoot-out and the house burning down from a home-made bomb... When interviewed (from the police station and hospital respectivly)...

Espinosa (husband) told reporters he was glad his wife had suffered burns, while Contreras (wife) said she was only sorry she had not “hacked off his manhood” during the fight.

Great feats of mankind - March 2006

2006-03-08T13:17:00.000-08:00

Let me begin this pointless list by giving credit to the Godfather of Truth, Steven Colbert. Last Thursday (4 days before the Oscars) Steven predicted all five major awards correctly, including Best Picture going to Crash rather than Brokeback Mountain. Despite the megalomaniacal celebration of himself (or perhaps because) on Monday night's edition of the Colbert Report, I think the man deserves the a spot on my most prestigious list.

Next up, we have a topic near and dear to my heart: Scotch.

According to an article on discovery news, a group of brewers in north Scotland have gotten together to follow a very old recipe to create 184 proof Whiskey (that's 92% of the hard stuff for those of you following at home.)

As the 1695 description of the concoction reports:

The first taste affects all the members of the body. Two spoonfuls of this last liquor is a sufficient dose — if any man should exceed this, it would presently stop his breath, and endanger his life.

I cannot thing of a more Scottish concoction than liquor that would have lethality comparable to a nice hemlock cocktail--and may I speak for the departed Socrates when I say that some 184 proof scotch would have been a much more noble way to go.

What could possibly be an achievement comparable to liquor that strong?!--how about vanilla poop?

That's right, our good friends in Japan have devised a way to extract the sweet smell of vanilla from cow shit. The method takes about one hour to produce the scent of vanilla from cow-pies and costs less than half as much as extracting the scent from vanilla beans. Brilliant! Now if just they could implement their process on the huge dairy facilities along I-5...

And finally, the Russian Space Agency, a Canadian company and their little balls are seeking to make history. That's right! a Russian is going to smack a golf-ball off of the international space station! Throwing conventional advertising and the laws of physics aside, a Russian Cosmonaut is planning on teeing off in mid orbit, sending the ball into orbit at a stunning 6-6.5 miles per second. Yee-ha! Of course, they are quietly down-playing the fact that the relative speed of the space station's orbit and the velocity of the golf-ball could result in a potentially catastrophic collision, where the golf-ball, having done a loopy around the world, would come back to it's point of origin (location is relative to the space station it-self, or so Einstein tells me) and bust a hole in the side of the space station. Pop--Wooossh!

So yes, this final feat has nothing to do with the Russians little balls (since apparently they have quite large balls to attempt this)--rather I'm impressed with the Canadian firm for getting the Russians to potentially endanger the International Space Station, a collaborative venture of several countries. And we were beginning to think that only Americans would endanger the wellbeing of themselves and others for the sake of profit!

Yay Capitalism!

Darwin has a point

2006-03-06T09:54:00.000-08:00

I believe in Darwinism—well, half of it at any rate. I find the proposition that natural selection would have the potential to create new species to be generally weak. The idea that a tiny creature could (randomly) evolve a single (limited) sense of feeling into a collaboration of five senses, including telescopic vision, taste and all that takes more faith than I am willing to expend. And yes, it is faith. As my 9th grade science teacher told me when I asked her about the doubts and gaps in evolution: “you just have to believe it.”

From that day on I have held a respect for science, but I have taken the words of scientists with a very wary grain of salt. Like any profession, science requires personal investment; your identity is tied to your work—and personal investment results in belief in what you are doing rather than stoic rationality (as would be required by scientists if they were true to method). I will try to keep this rant at a minimum, as obviously I have a personal investment in it revolving around a 10+ year old argument with the monotone Miss. Schwartz.

Regardless (because irregardless is NOT a word), I do believe in half of the theory of evolution—the selection bit. The archaeological record shows that there were thousands and thousands of species on the earth that once lived, but live here no longer. They have died out, passed away, shuffled off, been snuffed out, etc. It’s only natural for the least fit to go the way of the dodo, as the dodo once did. We see this all over; the dinosaurs were huge cold-blooded animals that would not be able to survive if there was a large temperature variance—oops. Species of birds, reptiles, mammals, as well as models of cars (remember the Chevy Nova, a car budget car marketed largely to the Spanish speaking public—too bad they didn’t realize that no va means “no go” in Spanish) and bad television shows have all died horrible and very public deaths.

Which brings us to my topic—fat people and suicide bombers. (The connection is logical, I swear.) In my opinion, decreased life expectancy due to overeating, eating crap, and sitting on rumps (yes, I admit I do not eat well often and my rump does get sat upon) may be an engine of social Darwinism aimed at thinning out the herd. The west lives in a culture of consumerism and consumption—he who wins with the most toys wins and all of that hogwash. A recent study shows that the U.S., and to a lesser degree Europe and an even lesser degree other places, is getting fatter. This is not a surprise—but it goes as far as to assert that the next generation, due to vast increases in the number of fat kids, will be the first one in recorded history that would have a shorter expected lifespan than their parents. Survival of the fittest indeed!

So, the grand design of social evolution may be getting its revenge upon the western world by blowing up children into red-faced, blubberous balloons—perhaps the grand design is pinning our sinful society down in a full-nelson to punish our tradition for a history of greed and meddling. Perhaps Darwin is taking down the western world so that others may rise—well, you ethnocentrist wackjobs, have no fear!

Darwin’s steely knife of death is having plenty of play with Middle-Eastern cultures. There are no available statistics on suicide bombers, at least that I could find. Generally they don’t leave much of a trail (more of a splatter really), but what we do know, is that a lot of folks from the ages of 15-25 have been more than willing to strap a backpack of explosives on and blow themselves into oblivion—hundreds and thousands of them have done so, and more are completely willing to. This, I conjecture, is natural selection at it’s most blatant.

When a society gets to the point where it encourages its youth to blow themselves up, or when a society offers their 8-year old a super-sized meal deal, they do not have the perpetuation of the species in mind.

When the US Surgeon General commented that childhood obesity is “every bit as threatening to us as is the terrorist threat we face today” it was more than rhetoric. There is an uncomfortable amount of truth in that statement.

The one thing I can offer in comfort, as our future generations slowly expand and die of size-related illnesses, is that perhaps the western world can claim some moral high-ground—at least fat kids don’t take other people with them when they go (enter an image of exploding vampires from Lost Boys, great flick.)

Though at the same time, I have admit that that little thread of hope is questionable—though our children are not killing the innocents in fiery blazes, our culture takes blatant advantage of, well, everyone we can. We have the muscle (though it’s quickly turning to flab) to make sure that we get the better end of every bargain—slowly but inevitably siphoning the prosperity out of other, smaller, weaker societies.

It’s just that western societies tend to kill through implosion rather than explosion.

So no, no moral high-round for you. We are no better than our enemies. Though we all face the prospect of different dooms—all human journeys end the same way.

I can't place it

2006-03-03T10:22:00.000-08:00

This puzzles me.

Let me begin by saying that this blog is an admission of ignorance, and no, for once I am not sarcastic. This is something I truly do not understand, and I am curious if other people have a similar vexation.

Hundreds (or some say thousands, depending on how liberal/conservative the media organization you care to site from is) of people have died in the last few weeks after the bombing of the Mosque in Iraq. There have been riots, execution-style killings, hordes have raided other holy sites, beating and killing people for vengeance.

Even more recently there was a more isolated event that, I think, better highlights what it is that I can't grasp (and this one focusing on crazy Christians, just for balance.) A few unknowns recently threw some firecrackers into the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth. The basilica (fancy way of saying church) is believed to be the site where Gabriel came to Mary to tell her that God had knocked her up, so it is considered to be an important site for Christians, specifically for Catholics and more fundamental sects.

As the article tells, the firecracker stirred up a riot in which a few people got bruised up and teargas was used to subdue the insanity.

Why?

I concede that it is most likely my point of view. I was raised in California, which is essentially the newest place in the world. An old building is one built in the 60s. If it's 100 years old, it's prehistory. Maybe it's because I live in a land of constant development and general new-ness that being willing to riot, let alone die or kill, for the sake of a structure seems like complete madness to me. Perhaps this comes from historical insensitivity. Maybe I am too detached from the roots of tradition and culture to really understand importance of these "sacred" places.

But really, I can't help but think that it's stupid and uncivilized. And that, I think, is a culturally important point--because I don't think that I'm alone in this conclusion. Americans, people who do not have the advantage/handicap of a deep-rooted sense of national identity have a hard time empathizing with this (if you think we do have a strong sense of our cultural identity try living for a year in Scotland, they are Scottish in a way that we will never be American.)

I'm going to withhold my judgment of which is better or worse. I believe that Americans are missing something because of our less-rooted sense of culture, but I truly do not know if that is a good thing or not when it comes down to it. I just know that it's how it is.

What I do know is that I do not empathize or identify with folks who would throw a riot over a tossed firecracker and that I do not want to. When I lived in Scotland I felt vastly uncomfortable because I did not fit into their sense of cultural identity, and I did not want to. I think it was the American, or more specifically the Californian in me.

But this divide exists. And it exists on both sides. Why do you think the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center? They looked for a cultural icon, they expected chaos to ensue as it did in Iraq when they(or "whoever") blew up the mosque last week. The terrorists use the same collection of tricks, they assume that other people think like they do because they, like us, lack the cultural empathy to really understand the other culture. They attacked what they thought was a holy capitalist relic, the Jerusalem of the market economy. The results were not what they expected--just as the results of our efforts in Iraq are not what we expected.

A new Musharraf in town

2006-02-28T09:14:00.000-08:00

I give you, Pakistan!

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf recently had a quiet and non-romantic sit-down with Martha Raddatz, the CBS White House News correspondent to talk about knitting. Unfortunately for the President, Raddatz had setup the knitting-fest only as an excuse to talk about Pakistan's terrorist policies.

Okay, not really. It was a weak setup bit. But I'm going to pretend that Musharraf had no idea what they were about to talk about--perhaps that would explain his dizzying approach to fighting terrorism and finding Bin Laden.

He denies that Bin Laden (from here in referred to as Ben) is inside Pakistan, claiming that all accusations that Ben is in Pakistan are based on Information rather than Intelligence (he defines information as unproven/unprovable bits of data, while intelligence is proven fact.) Fair enough. So where is he then?

Raddatz: And you're not guessing. You know he's in Afghanistan.

Musharraf: Absolutely. Because he's not located. [Assuming he means that because Ben has not been located within Pakistan] We are listening. We are seeing. We have far more greater intelligence than [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai has. I'm sure you would understand that. What intelligence does he have?

Okay, so Ben is "Absolutely" in Afghanistan, now we're getting somewhere!

Raddatz: You're listening and seeing intelligence, and you believe from that intelligence that you're listening to — that Osama bin Laden's in Afghanistan, not Pakistan?

Musharraf: No. No...

So he means "Absolutely Not." Nothing like decisiveness and confidence from our friends. Take a moment to note that this man is considered one of the U.S. biggest allies in the War on Terror. One minute, I need to go fix a drink.

Okay, so we've established that Mr Musharraf is a bit defensive and doesn't want anyone to have the impression that Benny is within his borders. So Mr. Musharraf, explain how you're fighting the terrorists.

We are not using the army only to track down Osama. I mean, this kind of a misperception should be removed. We are using the army against al Qaeda and Taliban. Now in the process, if you get word on him, very good.

That makes a kind of sense I suppose, so Musharraf, you do not think that finding Benny is as important as keeping the peace in your country. We can't blame him for that, he has 80,000 troops deployed on his borders to help keep the peace as best he can in a volatile corner of the world. Finding the leadership of al Qaeda and the Taliban isn't quite as important as the more immediate need to maintain peace and protect his Government.

One last question--so what do we do about the unrest and riots all over Pakistan about those damned Danish Cartoons?

We need to get a hold of those leaders behind the scene who incite people for political ends. These are the people who are inciting them for political ends. Their interest is not so much in the blasphemy but in creating some kind of destabilization against me, against the government. That is their interest. And the moment we get hold of the people behind the scene, it will die down.

I'm glad I went to get that drink. Time for a recap. Pakistan has a "oh if we run into something about Benny we'll see if we can find him" tactical approach, yet Musharraf recognizes the need to get the "people behind the scenes" so that the destabilization attempts in the region "will die down." In other words, he recognizes that catching Ben and his friends is the way to make the unrest in his country and the region "die down" yet he is not devoting his resources to finding them.

Groovy.

I'll take this moment to provide a graphic which may aid in Mr. Musharraf's sense of discernment:

This is an ass:

And this is a hole in the ground:

Oh to be fair (oh yes, the punnery)

2006-02-24T08:27:00.000-08:00

This blog by request, holycrap!

For those of you who may say "Hey, you're always writing about crazy foreign people, what about crazy people here in the States?! What about the white nutjobs?!" ... boy do we have a treat for you!

From Bakersfield, the beating heart of California, we have Prussian Blue! This lovely pair of Olsen twin lookalikes are currently in middle school, they enjoy history, hanging out with their friends, and singing about how great it is to be white and how all who are not of the pure blood deserve death.

Their light-hearted and sing-songy lyrics include such poetic triumphs as:

You finally came back to the borders of our Fatherland. Now enemies came, traitors everywhere at hand. Many people who had fought and died knowing that they had to win. And still it sickens my heart to see a picture of the red flag in Berlin.

But we must not forget the timeless summertime classics:

It’s not right for a Lamb near a Lane. To fight with a lion is insane. If the White men won’t battle for Life and Race. The women and children, the Terror will face….

Or lastly, the words of that the great folk hit that we all know by heart:

Weiss weiss weiss sind alle meine Kleider. Weiss weiss weiss ist alles was ich hab. Darum lieb ich alles was so weiss ist, weil mein Schatz ein Bäcker Bäcker ist. Grün grün grün sind alle meine Kleider. Grün grün grün ist alles was ich hab.

This week's commentary:

The news this week has been full of Muslims killing Muslims, Christians killing Muslims, Muslims killing Christians, some guy paying $100,000 for shirts worn in Brokeback Mountain, mudslides (of the deadly rather than alcoholic kind, boo) and the usual barrage of political bullshit. And for a soft background theme we have two innocent little Ayrians singing their hearts out.

Kinda makes you wanna throw your TV off a cliff and go move into to a secluded cabin somewhere--wait, too much of a "crazy white extremist" thing.

What about giving up all of your belongings and blindly following the leadership of a charismatic religious institution promising glory, fame and virgins?--eh, too Jihad.

Or perhaps sitting around with a bunch of people and talk about talking about problems and never achieve any useful conclusions or results?--naw, you have to be appointed to the U.N. I think.

Fine, how about go to work for 8 hours, grab a quick stromboli for lunch and then head home at the end of the day and have a cold beer, sit back and realize that the book of Ecclesiastes makes a damned fine point.

Iranian News

2006-02-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

This afternoon I read an article posted on the English translation section of the Tehran Times (a newspaper from the capital of Iran for the geographically challenged.)

The news article (dated February 23rd), which makes no mention of the article's author or date, outlines a somewhat reasonable line of thought which links the Danish Cartoons to a Jewish conspiracy that originated with a man named Daniel Pipes. The basic idea being that Pipes got together with the editor from the Danish newspaper, hatched the idea to commission the cartoons and then had them published. After they were published, Pipes and the rest of the "Jewish controlled media" helped bring the cartoon issue to the world stage to work to pit the Muslim world against the Christian West. This general theme is echoed in other articles which claim that the Mosque bombing today was actually performed by Jewish/American instigators.

Now, it's time to play analyst.

I read the original article in the Tehran Times and thought the lack of references odd, so me and my friend Google had some fun. It didn't take much to find a very similar article by a man named Christopher Bollyn. It doesn't take an English Major to see that the Bollyn article, which is dated February 9th, was used to write the Tehran Times article. In fact, the bulk of Bollyn's article is taken word-for-word and inserted into the Tehran Times bit, with minimal changes. Conclusion: the Tehran Times stole Bollyn's article.

So what--the media around the globe fires off weakly validated/plagiarized claims all the time!

Here is the "so what." A few more investigative searches on Bollyn found that this was not the first conspiracy pieces that he authored! (shocking is it not?) In fact, his greatest hits collection includes one on how the second plane in the World Trade Center tragedy wasn't actually a plane, but a BEAM ENERGY WEAPON DESIGNED BY THE U.S. AND ISREAL. Yes... I HAD to write that in all caps, take a look at it. If that doesn't paint a picture of Bollyn's analytical prowess his second theory of the World Trade Center collapse involves two unexplained seismic explosions and siezmic spikes rather than hijacked terrorist planes.

Because of this, when Daniel Pipes (the guy who Bollyn claims is at the center of the conspiracy) claims that Bollyn's Article is a ridiculous conspiracy theory I think I am inclined to believe him.

Conclusion: Tehran is publishing stuff like this, by writers like this, as NEWS. Say what you will about media corruption and inaccuracies into he U.S. this is a completely different ballgame, league, sport, etc. People over there are waking up and looking at the paper and they read unfounded, unresearched, and unhindged propaganda like this, every single morning and even if they believe 5% of it, that's a helluva lot of damage. If we want to understand some of the core problems that we face in the Middle East right now, stuff like this is key.

I don't know about anyone else, but this makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end.

Sure, Iran and Palestine may run democratic elections, but by its purest definition, this is not democracy (go Google some John Locke and note the man's stipulations on the need for education and open and available information for the voting public in a functional democracy).

Top 5 protests of February 22, 2006

2006-02-22T08:22:00.000-08:00

We have protests from around the globe! (in no particular order).

1. The Anti-Blonde James Bond League

The Western World gives us a group of very conscience citizens from the U.S. and Britain have banded together to fight the good fight against the studio's decision to make Daniel Craig the next James Bond. Using their webpage craignotbond.com, the noble group is dedicated to boycott the new Bond film.

2. Seaport Showdown!

This rumble pits the reigning champion of doing what he feels he should, President Bush against the Congress of the United States. The Bush administration has approved a corporate takeover that would transfer the ownership six major U.S. ports from a British company to a Government-owned corporation from the United Arab Emirates. Bill Frist is leading the (xenophobic) charge against Bush's decision citing no real evidence at all for his protest aside from a bit of an "if it's brown flush it down" attitude toward anything Middle-East. The Bush administration has pointed out that security at the ports would still be managed by the U.S. Coastguard and that all regulations and controls that are already in place would persist.

3. The Way to Go

California is currently having some legal trouble as it decides how best to kill convicted criminals in a gentle manner. The execution of Michael Morales was halted recently as two doctors who had been in responsible for administering his sedative and lethal doses of nastiness backed out at the last minute. A legal battle has ensued because witnesses say that it seems that those killed by lethal injection are suffering pain (god forbid our rapists and murderers suffer). Anti-death penalty protestors claim that the suffering is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment--to which I offer a rebuttal: Open your history book and see how criminals have been punished over the last, oh, course of human history and see if you can argue that a few brief muscle spasms would be cruel and unusual compared to the rack, hangings, being dropped in the east river or even the electric chair. If anything I would say it's generally very unusual for anyone, anywhere to die painlessly--though that's just me.

4. This One is for the Ladies...

The (ex)President of Harvard questioned whether or not woman have the same "intrinsic aptitude" to excel in science and math as men do--implying that no, they do not. His little social experiment has proved one thing though: chauvinists who speak their minds have an intrinsic aptitude for losing their jobs.

5. Oh Shi'ite

And from the other side of the world--Shia Muslims in Iraq are outraged because Sunni insurgents have blown up one of their holiest sites (basically Shia and Sunni's are the Protestant and Catholics of the Muslim World--just with a lot more killing and more than one virgin in question). The site housed the tombs of two important dead people and was supposed to be the site where the Shia Messiah figure left the mortal world (the story goes that God took him up so that he could return in the time of the apocalypse to clean house Chuck Norris style). So, after getting quite riled up over a few cartoons, the two primary Muslim factions have taken to blowing up each other's churches as more riots and protests ensue (some even claiming that the U.S. blew up the temple).

It's a very civil and very modern world we live in, is it not?

Everything is comin up roses!

2006-02-17T14:43:00.000-08:00

Still protesting the Danish Cartoons, cakemakers in the Middle East have decided to play hardball and have rechristened "Danish Pastries" as "Roses of the Prophet Muhammed."

Immediatly after changing the signs in his cakeshop, Hassan Nasserzadeh, a cake shop owner in central Tehran, told Reuters:

"No one is allowed to make fun of our beloved and respected prophet."

And nothing says respect like a delicately frosted puff pastry.

Well at least we can give them points for origina--er, wait no, forgot about the whole Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast business, it's been done. But really, hat's off to em' on this one, they are only a few years behind on this trend! (unlike other fads which much of the middle east still lags behind in, such as woman's rights, freedom of expression and the sacredness of human life.)

A little homework before murder?

2006-02-17T09:37:00.000-08:00

With the faulty intelligence that was used to leverage public support for the Iraq war still somewhat of a "hot-button" topic, I thought a bit of contrast may lighten the day--

As reported in Forbes online news, a Pakastani Cleric, Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, has announced a bounty on the head of the man who drew the Danish Cartoons. (Yes, this is problematic...)

Details of the death contract were detailed:

Qureshi said the mosque and his religious school would give $25,000 and a car, while a local jewelers' association would give another $1 million. No representative of the association was available to confirm it had made the offer.

and that...

"This is a unanimous decision by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize," Qureshi said.

For those of you keeping score at home, there were, in deed, 12 cartoonists, each drawing one of the 12 cartoons. And yes, this nugget of information has been included in over 90% of all articles written on the topic.

I'm just curious if Qureshi, his coven of imams, and the local business owners who are bankrolling his operation know that there were really 12 cartoonists and are just attempting to foster a bit more hate, or if their information is so incorrect and so limited that they don't have one of the most available and basic details regarding the cartoons--that they were drawn by 12 different people. The latter is a bit more dangerous I think, acting upon happy ignorance is a very dangerous thing.

A shot in the foot

2006-02-15T12:41:00.000-08:00

I can't quite decide if the following situation is ridiculous or unnerving.

Telenor, the big Norwegian telecommunication company which provides services in a number of countries in the middle east, most notably in Pakistan, has taken a few hits lately. In the last few days, rampaging protestors in Pakistan have burned down a number of Western establishments, such as fast food places (which I'm sure employed locals, smart move there) a few banks and a Telenor sales/service outlet.

Now, in a recent article Telnore states that "e-mails and text messages it has seen brought further proof that it has come into the crosshairs of Muslim protesters angered over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." and that "We know there are SMS (mobile phone text messages) and e-mails calling for a boycott of Western companies, and some are mentioning Telenor."

Okay--here is the part I haven't quite figured out my take on yet:

The Pakistani protestors are using their Telenor phones and internet services to discuss boycotting Telenor...

Problematic, isn't it? I mean, if they do start with boycotting the telecom group they are using to promote their boycotts, how, may I ask, would they then organize further boycotts?

I can't decide if this is just laughably ridiculous, or dangerously foreboding.

Today's world is one of commercial interdependence, we rely on our trade partners, and they rely on us--everyone has a few fingers in everyone else’s pies--so that if something like a world war would become a possibility, everyone would have too much to lose. From a global-political standpoint, I think that that this economic interdependence is the only (realistic) cornerstone for relative "world peace." (by world peace I do not mean the absence of war, I mean the absence of world war.) But what if countries ignore this interdependence in the same way that the protestors are ignoring their dependence on their cel phones to send txt msgs?

Some actual great journalism

2006-02-14T13:05:00.000-08:00

And it's from India?!

Instead of using today's blog to take my jab at Cheney's version of The Most Dangerous Game, I ran into a very insightful article from the Central Chronical regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations. After reading as much on the topic as the general news nets have to offer, I thought his explanation of the issues, told largely from the Russian point of view, were laid out very simply and intelligently.

The article was written by Sergey Karaganov, the Dy Director (no idea what that means) of the Institute of Europe, Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy of Russia.

Spin

2006-02-10T15:08:00.000-08:00

Every human being from the time they are able to speak, will tell stories with their own little spin. It begins with "Well I accidentally tripped my sister" and continues on through "Well we had intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction." And so on.

I tell everything with a (very intentional) spin.

This is not a profound revelation. Anyone who advertises objectivity is either deliberately deceptive, naive, or a scientist (and I would argue that scientists are both a bit naive, and a bit deceptive.)

Today's example hit up on the front page of a check of MSN news, the headline proclaiming that Americans Say President Shouldn't Suspend Rights.

The first (and all important) line of the article states "Most Americans believe a president should not be allowed to suspend constitutional guarantees in order to fight terrorism, a poll released Friday said."

The article explains that the American Bar Association administered a poll of public opinion in regard to the recently spotlighted presidential wiretapping debates. According to MSN's article, Michael Greco, the president of the Association told a news conference that:

As our poll shows, and legal scholars agree, the awesome power of government to penetrate citizens' most private communications must not be held in one set of hands.

Adding that:

I personally reject the false choice that is being offered Americans that they must give up their liberties to have security. We must protect both, and we can protect both.

Refreshingly, Greco is not hiding his bias, he makes a point of announcing his own opinions up-front. Huzzah!--and this from a lawyer?! But where are thee sneaky lawyer tricks you ask!?...

Later on, the article discusses the survey performed by the American Bar Association:

Of [those surveyed] 52 percent agreed that a president should never be able to ''suspend the constitutional freedoms of people like you.''

Ah-ha! "People like you." Such a simple little phrase, so loaded with connotation. Having had a tad bit of training myself in the formulation of impartial surveys, I can say straight away that a phrase like that would have earned a nice big red circle from my professors while alternatives such as "residents of this country" or "people living within the U.S." would have earned an approving nod. It may sound slight, but in practice when dealing with responses of hundreds or thousands of people, the slightest change in language can make a huge difference in results.

My opinion on the topic of wiretaps--inconsequential. But today, when people argue their cases with loaded arguments and tainted evidence like this, the media simply embellishes upon it and tosses an ol' eye patch over their critical eye. Our media (and the vast majority of those who read/watch the media) either have never learned or have chosen to bury their critical instinct.

It's gotten to the point where there are no trustworthy headlines, and few uncorrupted statistics (this is not new, I would imagine it has always been like this) but to worsen it, there is very little, if any, critical response from "people like you."

I shall dare a rebuttal

2006-02-08T16:03:00.000-08:00

At Mrs. Kings funeral yesterday Civil rights leader Rev. Joseph Lowery made several comments about his opposition to war, based upon his Christian faith. Many people commented that the speakers such as Lowery and Jimmy Carter politicized the event and used it as a platform for furthering their political opinions rather than honoring Mrs. King.

When asked later on, Lowery explained his words further:

And I think that, in the context of the faith, out of which the movement grows, we have always opposed war. We‘ve always fought poverty. And we base our—our argument on—on the faith, on the fact that Jesus taught us. He identified with the poor. “I was hungry; you didn‘t feed me. I was naked; you didn‘t clothe me. I was in prison; you didn‘t see about me.” He talked about war. He talked about he who lives by the sword.

Did he now?

Let me first begin by pointing out something simple:

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Excellent misquote, Reverend. (Not to mention that these words properly quoted and in context are not about war or 'he who lives by the sword.')

Now for Part Doux--A textual search through the New Testament (New King James) version yields one instance of Jesus using the word war:

Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

Taken out of context this verse would imply the necessity of strategery (oh yeah, strategery) when approaching a battle. Take in context this quotation is, not surprisingly, not about war at all. It is an allegory.

Additionally, after a few searches for "fight," "battle," and "Sword" I found this one:

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

And I call that strike three, Reverend.

Now--as a matter of theological debate--tell me the difference between this Reverend twisting the bible and the words of Jesus one way to fit his own interpretations and the Muslim Clerics who are twisting the doctrines of Islam the other way?

A splash of the arts

2006-02-08T14:31:00.000-08:00

A little something from our friends who programed the great Random Haiku Generator

Still rhinoceros
defecates fiercely, lemon
bloating drops swirling

So true. So, so true. What more could I possibly say that the poem doesn't shout from a mountaintop? Priceless.

And for an encore:

Quarrelsome bat slurps

laughing potato whimpers

preying quicksands kill

Personally I found the imagry behind the laughing potato's wimper very moving--it really resonated with my inner sense of being, you know? Though I think that the reference to the the elemental struggle between man and machine is a little too overdone as of late, though I will admit, the random computer that generated this poem did not lack a sense of aesthetic beauty and balance.

Multiculturalism

2006-02-07T15:45:00.000-08:00

From the International Herald Tribune:

Ostensibly, said Garton Ash, the clash has pitted two sets of values against one another - freedom of expression and multiculturalism - with the latter demanded of societies in which Muslim immigrant populations, initially seen as a temporary labor force in the 1960s, have become permanent and expanding.

Alright, admittedly, this is a rant I've had building up since the fifth grade--

Multiculturalism will not work. It is an impossibility. However riveting the old "We are the World" gig was--it's hogwash.

I remember in grade school they began multicultural fairs, where students would come and put on a show/skit/song/dance representing their cultural heritage. 98% of the kids involved were American, born and bred. They had to research what their "cultural heritage" was. And for us whities, we just got to sit there because, as we all know, white Americans can be defined as "a complete lack of ethnicity."

These assemblies would end with a big hand-holding heartwarming hugle-fest where we all say "I see we're different, and I love the differences, lets all hug and share."

It may be a pretty island of idealism, but tell me--can anyone provide a moment in human history where different cultures resolved issues by sitting there and pointing out each other's differences? Lunacy! I've said it before--go read Herodotus!

And that's not even to mention the fact that multicultural fairs and the like make people feel as if they SHOULD have a cultural identity that is separate from the mainstream so that they can feel special by association--creating a sense of cultural anomie where there was one before--creating social hypochondriacs (personally i'm more for forging your own personal identity rather than adopting one from a few quick Googles... but that's a rant for another day.)

Daily News Summary: Feb. 07, 2006

2006-02-07T09:55:00.000-08:00

The world is exhibiting it's usual symtoms of insanity.

Riots in the Middle east, hordes attempting to storm US military bases in Afghanistan in response to the Danish Cartoons (huzzah for making sense there...)

Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow are splitting up! We never saw it coming!

Iran is threatening to exercise free speech by printing cartoons that question the Holocaust (they don't quite grasp the idea of the extreme exercise of free speech--you're supposed to say something that is UN-expected.)

And speaking of UN, Kofi Annan is playing Rodney King (can't we all just, get along?) with language as soft and fluffy as his designer feather down pillows.

Coka-Cola's profits are down 28%! Disney's earnings are up 7% from the 3rd quarter!

Suggested reading: Gogel's Diary of a Madman. Seriously. Very quick read, and somehow, in light of the daily news, I find the image of a crazed Russian asking "if i may have a word with your doggie" to be a scene of serenity and sanity. Ah--the good ol' days when absurdity was a writing style rather than a lifestyle.

That'll fix em!

2006-02-06T12:17:00.000-08:00

Pakistan recently decided that the best method of retaliation against the EU for so scandelously allowing the free press to publish what they want and not prosecuting (and beheading) the offending cartoonists and newspaper barons for blasphemy (not really listed as a crime...) was to boycott EU medicines!

Yeah, the best way to represent your citizenry and further your cause is to create a potential human rights crisis by denying them adaquate medical supplies...

Brilliance.

On another fun thought is the concept of prosecuting EU news agencies for the crime of blasphame (which has been suggested by several Arab officials). Well, since Blasphame is not a crime in those EU countries... then are they not implying that any country could punish anyone in the world for breaking any of their laws and setting a precident for all sorts of shinnanigans? Now just imagine the potential...

A Helena, Montana, law states that a woman cannot dance on a saloon table unless her clothing weights more than three pounds, two ounces.

Florida prohibits topless walking or running within a 150 foot zone between the beach and the street.

Dueling is legal in Paraguay as long as both parties are registered blood donors.

The only acceptable sexual position in Washington D.C. is the missionary position. Any other sexual position is considered illegal. (yeah as if it's even enforced in DC..)

Every citizen of Kentucky is required by law to take a bath once a year.

Impotence is grounds for divorce in twenty-four states in the United States.

In Milan, Italy there is a law on the books that requires a smile on the face of all citizens at all times. Exemptions include time spent visiting patients in hospitals or attending funerals. Otherwise the fine is $100 if they are seen in public without a smile on their face.

In Pakistan, it is rude to show the soles of your feet or point a foot when you are sitting on the floor.

In San Salvador drunk drivers can be punished by death before a firing squad. (actually not really against this one..)

France - Between the hours of 8AM and 8PM, 70% of the music in the radio must be by French composers.

Thailand - It is illegal to leave your house if you are not wearing underwear. (oops)

Give this guy a hand!

2006-02-03T15:13:00.000-08:00

I ripped the above image from the homepage of the Woodland County Fair Mall the banner picture on the front page is randomized so I had to isolate this one--hit reload a few times on their homepage and it'll come up.

Insert one-liners here:

Quote of the Day, Feb 03

2006-02-03T08:23:00.000-08:00

From Routers regarding the great cartoon blasphame of two double-ought-six:

"It involves the whole Islamic world vis-a-vis Denmark and vis-a-vis the trend of Islamophobia," he said.

Um, well, since your religion has a very established reputation for random violence and support of terrorism (which breeds fear by the way--that is it's GOAL)... perhaps they should do some house-keeping to try to counter "Islamphobia" by discouraging Muslim extremists rather than beat people and blow things up... dono, call me crazy.

Sweet, sweet irony (Danishes all around!)

2006-02-02T10:14:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post:

Across the political spectrum, European editors said publishing the images was a defense of freedom of expression. The images, which first appeared in the conservative Danish daily Jylands Posten in September, were republished this week in Die Welt, a leading conservative daily in Germany, France Soir, a independent daily with financial problems, de Volkskrant, a progressive Dutch daily, and Corriere della Serra, a leftist Italian daily, along with eight other European papers.

And around the world, Muslims continued to take offense. The editor of France Soir was fired today by the paper's owner, an Egyptian businessman who offered an apology to "the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication."

In the Middle East, Palestinian militants issued a threat against citizens of Denmark and Norway where the drawings were first published. "All nationals and those who work in the diplomatic corps of these countries can be considered targets of the Popular Resistance Committee and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades," the statement said, according to aljazeera.net.

I think the part I love the most about all this is that Al Jazeera (a news agency) has been airing videos of American's/Brits/others getting their heads cut off among plenty of other things that are a BIT offensive to those of us who reside in western culture--yet if Europe publishes a few cartoons and suddenly WESTERN media is fanning the fires of hate?!

Irony, oh dear sweet, sweet irony.

The Generation of Contentment

2006-02-01T13:25:00.000-08:00

I have the honor/misfortune to be on a generational cusp. I could say I'm in "Generation X," or I sneak forward a few months and claim "Generation Y."

Neither would help me much, since both X and Y are variables--they are representative figures with no direct value or meaning associated with them (or so my 7th grade algebra teacher told me). Yes--I am implying that there is a general lack of a sense of innate meaning in my generation(s). We are largely sophists and ideological capitalists by nature--we will follow the ideas and ideologies that seem to offer us the largest margin of gain. This is not new--history has piles of sophistic generations (though unfortunately the majority of them have appeared when a culture is on it's way out the door, such as the namesake sophists from ancient Greece.)

Now I'm looking nieve because it sounds as if I'm claiming that other generations do not share the same handicaps--so I'll straighten my line of thought--all generations (at least in the modern western world) are driven by a sense of personal capitalism. In general terms, people want what's best for them and theirs--they want to gain stuff (materially, spiritually, etc).

The point of difference between the traditional capitalist generations and a sophistic generation is the presence and lack of adopted ideologies. Brokaw's Greatest Generation had an ideology--they had a work ethic. Subsequent generations have had a storm of ideologies, from the beat poets to the expatriates, civil rights to the Klan--these people believed, and associated themselves and their identity with those beliefs.

A sophist generation will adopt different ideologies at their capitalistic whim. They believe something because it appears to be advantageous to them socially, monetarily, egotistically, etc. The question of why is not asked. This is not because they are stupid or dull--it is because they are sick of what they have been fed:

Churches teach morals first and spiritualism maybe (and yes, this is backwards.)

Politicians tout extremes of one side or another--all seem unreasonable (with the possible exception of Kinky Friedman, jury's still out.)

Science can explain everything (yet answer very few real questions).

Eggs are good for us--eggs are bad for us--eggs are good for us...

Enter in here 1,000s of other contradictions and simplifications of the world that our generation have been handed. Our generation is not stupid--I just think that there has been an unpronounced and unconscious conclusion that everything that we have been told and every truth that we have been given is fooey.

Therefore, sophist generations tend to say screw it and discard the deep-seeded ideological beliefs of their parents and grandparents--sorting out the original meaning and validity of beliefs amongst a million tellings and retellings is a fool's errand. We can say we're following our hearts, but in reality we're following our stomachs--adopting the ideas that appear to be the tastiest and then tossing the half-eaten cores aside when another fruit comes into season (check annual divorce rates over the last 20 years--they loudly support this conclusion).

I would call us a Generation of Contentment (borrowing the general concept from Prof. John Hampsy's Paranoia and Contentment.) Hampsy argues that contentment is a state of self-serving and self-reliance--contentment is not evil, it is neutral, it is stagnant. Those who strive to achieve contentment will not reach beyond what they believe to be their potential. They strive for a controlled environment where they can be a rock and an island as a wise fella' once sang. A culture of contentment will rarely disappoint--but it will rarely surprise and never evolve.

We are not solid in our beliefs because, due to countless revisions (science) and contriditions (religious groups) there are very few things we feel that we can confidently invest belief in.

Joss Wheden understands and illustrates the concept perfectly (Joss = writer of Buffy, Angel and Firefly/Serenity). In Serenity (film, great, go netflix it) there is a scene when the protagonists find out that their adversary is "a believer" and that because he stands resolutely in his beliefs, he is stronger and more powerful then they are. Only after the crew of Serenity finds something that they can believe in, are they ready to face their enemy.

This quite neatly brings me to what I consider to be the pertinent point. The world today is a mess, peopled by groups of sophists and groups of believers. Our country is one of growing sophism. And I believe that this is an issue (understatement).

Gonna have the Danish for breakfast!

2006-01-31T10:39:00.000-08:00

This is one of the most telling news stories I've seen in a while:

Sources:

International Tribune

Houston Chronicle

Globe and Mail

The short of it:

A Danish Newspaper printed a cartoon with a caricature of Muhammad (the Prophet not the boxer). The images were considered broadly to be offensive. Why?--

"The caricatures, 12 drawings that were reprinted in a Norwegian paper this month[November], included an image of the prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse. Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry"

One of the most entertaining quotes came from the Iraqi Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari:

"[He] demanded that Denmark put the newspaper and its editors on trial "for offending the beliefs of Muslims." He warned that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, considered the spiritual leader of the world's Shia Muslims, was very displeased."

A large number of Muslim groups have been angered by the image, most notably (though not at all limited to) Palestinians:

"Masked gunmen briefly seized a European Union office in Gaza City to protest the caricatures, and the dairy group Arla Foods, which is based in Denmark, reported that two of its local employees in Saudi Arabia were beaten by angry customers. Arla said a boycott of its products in the Middle East was nearly total. The Danish Red Cross said it was evacuating two of its employees from Gaza and one from Yemen after receiving death threats."

For the sake of increasing cultural understanding, this is where I think the fine points of interest are. Here is a breakdown of the stream of logic behind these attacks (and I am comfortably assuming that these two attacks were just the biggest headliners and that a number of smaller harassments and unreported fray's were also involved).

Cause: A Danish newspaper published a series of offensive images.

Effect: Justifiable anger (seriously).

Responses to the situation:

Reasoning point 1:
The newspaper was in Denmark. So it is the Danish' fault. (Despite the fact that the Danish aren't exactly political movers and shakers, they like to stay out of the way, passive-aggressive style. In WW2 they surrendered to the Germans--though not before smuggling the vast majority of their Jewish population out of sight.)

Therefore 1:
Beating up anyone Danish is considered responsible social activism.

Reasoning point 2:
Denmark is in Europe. So all of Europe is responsible.

Therefore 2:
Putting on masks, grabbing guns, and storming the EU consulate in Gaza is considered responsible social activism.

Issue:
The assumption that the words of a newspaper are indicative of the opinions of an entire country--no wait, an entire continent! And offences of one voice are just cause for violence? Because one entity made a comment, the outspoken voices of Muslim society (this is not to say the majority of the people) concluded that both random and targeted violence were viable solutions.

Reality of the logic:
Now, for a moment, let's assume that statements made by a political cartoon are on par to say, statements issued by the President of Iran. Now, let's say, that the President of Iran said that an entire nation should be exterminated because he doesn't like where they live and that it should be wiped from existence (and hell, let's even ignore the huge issue of denying that the holocaust ever took place).

Now--even if we pretend that these two insults are on par (which they in no way are)--if the western nations ascribed to the logic of the outspoken voices of Muslim society--what would the western response to this threat be?

What will be/have they been?
Statements of disapproval issued by the leaders of Western countries and possible economic sanctions (implemented someday none-too-soon-if-ever) and only if the UN Security Council decides they are justified (and the decision isn't vetoed)--and the sanctions wouldn't even be in direct response to the President's comments--they would address parallel issues regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Iran will never make a public appology. And I can pretty much garentee that nowhere in Denmark were Iranians beat up because of the comments made by the President of Iran.

Addition:

Oh and this is just fabulous, from this morning's news (the comment was released as a number of UK newspapers re-published the pictures this morning)

In an editorial, Patricia Briel argued that "freedom of the press and freedom of speech are fundamental achievements made by democratic societies, and the latter do not have to bow in the face of demands that endanger these hard-won principles."

Kinda brings a Ben Franklinesque tear to the eye. Them Brits can talk so purdy.

Big Bats and Big balls

2006-01-30T22:12:00.000-08:00

Bats and Balls

Okay, aside from being the potential source of countless tasteless (and excellent) jokes, explain to me how the final comments in this article support the idea that the evolutionary process could possibly result in MORE intelligent species?!

Hell, it's a flashback to the Plato's Symposium where Aristophanes describes early forms of human life as being gigantic genitals that ran around trying to "hook up," I think both his social and scientific commentary are quite pertinent and quite funny (and tasteless, yay Aristophanes!)