Somebody Bet on the Bay

boof-pfft-sllllt. tough news, if yr me.

for me, the hardest thing about trying to question the existence of "God" has always been the, i dunno, "culturally- Catholic" flavor of my own agnosticism. you can take the Boy out of the church, they say, but you can't take the incense-stench out of the subsequent young-goodman's nostrils. thus i grew up to play in bands and do writings that have always retained this weird, mystical, stigmata-ish bunch of motifs, to the point of being kind of an emo cliche.

well, imagine my chagrin. it seems i now have to contend with the revelation that gramsci, of all people, made a deathbed conversion to catholicism. boof!

i remember Fr. Edward Seton taking my (quasi-mandatory) confession, listening to my slew of well-reasoned arguments against teleology, and against sanctity as such. he told me, "you're a Catholic, Pat, you'll always be," and grinned shit-eatingly.

what sort of fate is this?

it's a good thing i just scored Bergman's religious trilogy, eh? thank you, Criterion. they're my primary texts, my vitamins on the "there is no god/yes, wait there is and god is horrible" score.also, i finally got around to seeing There Will Be Blood (n/c!). and i must say, that struck me as the most thoroughly agnostic sort of Horatio Alger/Morality Play thing I've seen since Crimes and Misdemeanors. top shelf!

Not quite clear on the concept

I think that this is the very definition of irony... or stupidity.

Fuck

Adblock

Revenge fantasies of the impotent

Sometimes the tools I use to keep on top of the information I need for my job send me on some wild trips through the ninth sphere of the blogoverse. And today I found Woody, who hepped me to this thoroughly satisfying little journey through the land of "What if?"

What caught my eye is that Woody approvingly cites the WTF? first paragraph of this Washington Times bit:

Call them the "Doomsday" scenarios -- On Nov. 5, the presidential election winds up in a electoral-college tie, 269-269, the Democrat-controlled House picks Sen. Barack Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Republican Sarah Palin his successor.

As far as the Times go, they've certainly got my attention. That Woody gushes over the most unlikely, improbable scenario possible is just kinda creepy. Aside from the obvious point that the certification of the Electoral College vote would proceed under a newly-seated Congress (presumably with a majority (not necessarily working) that doesn't include Joltin' Joe), I simply don't see any reason Joe Lieberman would do that. Voting to confirm Palin wouldn't land him a job in the administration of the (previously confirmed) President Obama, and it would certainly be followed by the words "I will not be seeking another term as the Senator from Connecticut" for all intents and purposes. And that assumes he has the Joementum to survive the recall vote sure to await the man who put the Least Qualified Veep Candidate Ever over the top. The whole scenario is just obnoxiously far-fetched.

The rest of the Times article presents a fair, if somewhat wishful, presentation of the possible politics behind a tie in electoral votes - standard fare. But I just can't get over that first paragraph. It's like the hook must include something that their readers think really sticks in the craw of the Left, and then they slap the trappings around it. After that, we're blessed with the opportunity to witness Woody's arousal at the thought of liberals so driven mad with rage that the National Guard would have to be brought out, and yadda yadda yadda President Palin nukes us to Heaven!

Woody scores additional points for having admitted that this particular revenge fantasy was crushed by the batshit insane prognostications of DHo, who, through a quick look at some Zogby polls, predicts a McCain landslide. And thus begins the turgidity brought on by the thought of a massively popular President McCain who drives liberals so mad with rage that the National Guard would have to be brought out, and yadda yadda yadda Jesus go BOOM!

Before I end, I'd be remiss if I didn't inform you that no visit to Woody's site is complete without a glance at the "Random Obama Facts" generator. My current "fact":

FACT: Tony Rezko once offered Obama a sweetheart land deal, but Obama said "no" because he wanted his family to stay within the community of which he was the organizer.

Kinda reads like a really bad fortune cookie, huh?

Jesus Muffins or, Soon We'll All Live in Wasilla

A friend remarked this week that it would suck to live in Wasilla -- and I responded that if the Democrats fuck this up, we'll all be living in Wasilla soon. What I want to write tonight isn't about Sarah Palin per se (although I need to get back to that soon); instead, I am trying to process something I experienced yesterday that gave me a little taste of what I think it will be like to live in Sarah Palin's America.

A colleague and I had a meeting yesterday with representatives from a local organization called Pregnancy Support Services and a campus group called Carolina HOPE (an acronym for "Helping Our Peers with Encouragement"). PSS is a "crisis pregnancy center." You probably already know what that coded language signifies, but I encourage you to check out their web site. At the very least, stay long enough to enjoy the over-produced flash video on their home page. Go ahead, I'll wait...

...Crazy, huh? This is precisely the kind of through-the-looking glass nonsense that will shape our reality with Sarah Palin in/near the White House. Somehow we are expected to swallow the notion that this "pro-woman" organization is all about "choice" and "empowerment." (Hell, given that, you might even go so far as to characterize it as a feminist organization! In exactly the same way that Palin is a feminist candidate!) As with McCain's running mate, a fundamental dishonesty permeates everything about this organization. And the woman they sent to talk to me and my colleague? Also fundamentally dishonest to her very core.

(Actually, just as an aside, the woman actually reminded me of Sarah Palin in many ways. Very put together, confident, aggressive, and never for a second deviating from a carefully-crafted set of talking points.)

Anyway, the PSS rep was the handler (and puppet master) for a sweet, painfully earnest staff person for Carolina HOPE, a "a student-led Christian organization dedicated to assisting individuals facing the challenges of unplanned pregnancy, encouraging sexual abstinence outside of marriage, and educating individuals regarding the consequences of sexually transmitted diseases and other health concerns." (We initially agreed to a meeting with the student group; the PSS rep showed up uninvited.)

Why were meeting with these people, you might ask? (And believe me, I asked that many times myself.) I was there representing the Women's Center mainly to do some proactive damage control. Those of you who remember the PopTart days may recall me writing about the Women's Center's past unpleasantness with anti-choice student groups. It's a long story (one that involves these fuckers, who essentially orchestrated the whole mess from behind the scenes), but it resulted in, among other things, a ruling from our University Counsel that, unless we agree to represent "both sides" of the issue equally (which we will not do), we can't advertise or promote any program related to reproductive rights. Un-fucking-believable, but true. That was three years ago, and my director and I, both of whom came to the University after that debacle, have been fighting to change this. But that means for now we need to stay off the radar screens of the anti-choice crowd and their backers. So when the "HOPE" woman asked me to meet with her, I agreed to go and politely hear what she had to say.

My colleague is a sexual health educator with our campus Wellness organization. Her boss sent her because, on paper, HOPE claims to do exactly what she does: counseling and programming around sexuality, healthy relationships, and STI awareness/prevention.

So we sat and listened to their pitches, then got to ask them some questions. I'm mostly going to leave the HOPE woman out of this, because, although her organization clearly has an agenda that I vehemently oppose, she (as an individual) was just one of those "blissed out on Jesus" types who could just as easily have been teaching Sunday school as working for this campus organization. In other words, I got the sense that she does what she does just because she loves Jesus. Whatever. Then again, it's hard to completely let her off the hook when I think about what disastrous consequences abstinence-only education has had on so many young people's lives. NC is (shock!) an abstinence-only state. Coming to the University is, for many students, the first opportunity they've had to get comprehensive information about sex. If this group had their way, even that would be off the table. That saddens me. And it pisses me off.

But far, far worse was the (personal and institutional) agenda of the PSS woman. Evil lying liar. She said with a straight face that one of the things she loved about her organization was that it was "not political" and "didn't advocate for one side or another of any issue." (They don't support abortion rights and won't give referrals to anyone who wants to terminate their "crisis pregnancy" and the information they provide about abortion procedures are misleading and inaccurate--again, check out their web site to see what I am talking about; you really have to see this to believe it...but this, apparently, is "not political.") Their "open, tolerant, non-judgmental" approach is a result of their "Christian philosophy."

But Christian love is not the only unexpected benefit you can get if you show up at their clinic for a pregnancy test or STI screening. If the test says preggers, you will be treated to a free ultrasound. Isn't that awesome?! Other physicians charge for this, but they give first-trimester ultrasounds away for free--whether you want it or not! Why? So you can find out how far along you are and if it is a viable pregnancy. Oh, and also so you can see God's beautiful creation that you might monstrously choose to destroy. But that's neither here not there, of course. If you remain unconvinced and are hellbent on murdering a baby, you get pre-abortion counseling. Here you will find out how brutal, painful, and permanently emotionally-damaging abortion is. Also, PSS woman told us, at this point many people find it comforting for their health care provider to pray with them. What if the patient is not Christian or religious, we asked? Well, you might be interested to know that at moments of crisis many people find that they develop a newfound faith. Really, it happens! Such is the nature of god's (completely apolitical and value-neutral) love! And she noted that she herself likes to take the time to ask her patients about how their crisis pregnancy fits into their "worldview" while she has them in the examining room. (Let me just interject a big WTF??? at this point. Can you imagine this? You're sitting there freaked out, having just gotten confirmation of something huge and life-altering--and probably not in a good way, or you would be at your OB-GYN's office, not a crisis pregnancy clinic. And at that moment of profound vulnerability, some jesus freak swoops in and starts probing you about your beliefs and trying to pray with you. So. Not. Cool.) This course of action is known as helping you "consider your choices." (By the same token, their 800 number is known as the "option line.") See, they're not anti-choice! That's just propaganda from the pro-abortion crowd!

Even before students get knocked up, they can visit the clinic for free STI screening or information about birth control. Now this is a little dicey, since the organization subscribes to an abstinence-only philosophy. But in addition to free (free!!!) services, they'll give you the straight dope: about how condoms almost always fail and the huge number of fornicators who get painful, incurable diseases, and the detrimental physical, emotional, and spiritual effects of sex outside of marriage. Will Planned Parenthood tell you all that? No sir! And Campus Health may give you medically accurate information, but without any information at all about how Jeebus wants you to save yourself for marriage (or how you're going to hell if you don't). That, my friend, is real choice.

It was really hard to sit and listen to this. My Southern politeness was definitely put to the test. But at the end of our conversation (wherein I accomplished my mission of assuring them that we at the Women's Center were not preforming abortions in our back room, deflecting their attention away from our organization, and not being incarcerated for homicide), the HOPE woman presented me and my colleague with tins of muffins (two kinds!) with a note that read "Thanks for taking the time to meet!"

Initially I planned to abstain, on principle, from the Jesus muffins. But they were sweet and tempting and I was hungry. So I ate two of them. And I don't feel guilty. Not. One. Bit.

Anyway, all this to say that we cannot lose this election. Seriously, we can't fuck this one up. The consequences are just too scary. And I doubt they'll come with muffins.

Arguing with god

I recently commented on a post by ash that, via Facebook, I found out my sister was on the Maverick Express and that I planned on asking her why. Which I did in as friendly a way as I could (sis could, of course, be the one providing the bone marrow for a transplant one of these days).

I should mention that my sister doesn't pay much attention to politics, which is no big shakes, considering she's right there with the majority of the electorate. Her reasons for supporting McPalin were that 1)she's conservative, 2)McCain has more experience, and 3)she's concerned that Obama "changes his mind" too much. Admittedly, I did want to sway her, but knowing that lecturing someone isn't the most effective way to change minds, I asked further questions.

What does it mean when you say you're a conservative?

What is it about McCain's experience that appeals to you?

What has Obama changed his mind about that concerns you?

She responded by telling me that she's a Christian conservative, that 20+ years in the Senate plus military experience is greater than 4 years in the Senate, and that Obama's flip-flopping on the war concerned her (she doesn't believe in Obama's plan to "pull out in one day"). She also had a "gut feeling" that Obama wasn't the right person for the job and, as they say, you should "always listen to your gut."

So far, all well and good. I'm on terrain where I'm comfortable. While I might vehemently disagree that people should base political decisions on religious values (whether they be on the left or the right), I've had enough churchin' and independent study to be able to argue about politics on religious grounds. The experience angle is a legitimate point that can be mooted. And the flip-flopping objection is clearly a factual error that should be pointed out for reconsideration.

Knowing that my sister really isn't in to these sorts of conversations, I decided to not go overboard with my response. I left her still very vague definition of conservatism alone and ignored the experience argument. I did, however, let her know that Obama has never been for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and that his position, as shown in legislation introduced in the Senate and from his campaign policy positions, has been remarkably consistent. I also told her that she should rely on her head rather than her gut in making important decisions like this. At this point, I said I'd leave her alone, but offered to talk to her more about it if she's up for it.

Two days later, I get a note from my mom asking me to leave sis alone with the politics. Trés third grade, to be sure, but old familial habits from childhood die hard, I suppose. That would have been the end of it if mom hadn't included in there word that sis wouldn't vote for Obama unless "god told her to." The quotes are from my mom.

This, needless to say, has seriously shaken me up. I can't argue with god, and I sure as shit can't argue with someone who thinks that god is talking to them.

I keep asking myself where the hell this came from. My parents are both religious people, but I'm almost certain that they don't believe that god talks to them. They're more of the "god gave you a brain to make decisions, you know from the good book what god thinks you should do, so it's up to you to do the right thing" school. And while they're socially conservative, I wouldn't put them anywhere near the Dobson camp. They're simply not ideologues. On top of that, sis has a college degree from a Research I public university - it's in finance, to be sure, but it's not like she went to Liberty U.

It's one thing for me to think that a member of my family is making decisions with recourse to values that she's learned that are at odds with my own. Again, there's enough of a common ground to engage and have a serious discussion. It's a whole 'nother ball of wax to have a family member who eschews even the smallest amount of research because she knows how god wants her to vote. I've been stewing all weekend thinking that not only is sis crazy, she's actually a danger to our democracy. She's literally one of the people against whom I've been fighting for my entire adult life.

I keep telling myself I'm overreacting, that she's like any other of the millions of low-information voters out there who will cast their votes on the most dubious of grounds. Maybe it's because she's kin. But this is far beyond anything I've been faced with before, and it's no fun thinking that my sister is a complete fool.

Moral Relativism

You all know that I am not a smart man, so help me out here.

Having sex outside of marriage is a sin, yes? But apparently, not that big of a sin.

From what I understand, abortion is murder, which is a huge sin. Big time. Not having an abortion qualifies someone to be vice president and definitely overrides the sin of having premarital sex.

But, volunteering to participate in a war of conquest and killing someone (be they combatant, or, as is more likely, innocent civilian) is not murder nor a sin.

Do I have this right? Because, if so, it seems to me that it is fair to say that the decisions one makes are influenced by a particular set of circumstances and what is "right" or "wrong" can depend on those circumstances or even a particular point of view.

Hmmm.

New frontiers in constitutional thought

By now you're all surely aware of the Great Frackin' Cracker Desecration of 2008 (Cliff Notes version here). One of the pleasant byproducts of this highly entertaining sacrilege has been my making the acquaintances of some, shall we say out of the way organizations. Like the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, for example, whose poorly designed web site leads me to believe that they're a small organization of right-wing priests.

I know I should probably cut them some slack because they're clergymen and not law-talkin' guys, but their legal reasoning, especially on constitutional matters, seems somewhat suspect:

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional...

[...]

The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation's constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few. Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.

Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law. Hence, inscribing Swastikas on Jewish synagogues or publicly burning copies of the Christian Bible or the Muslim Koran, especially by a faculty member of a public university, are just as heinous and just as unconstitutional. Individual freedoms are limited by the boundaries created by the inalienable rights of others. The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

It's funny how their understanding of the First Amendment is exactly the opposite of what it actually means. Yes indeed I have a right to offend any faith tradition I damn well please, so long as I'm not damaging anyone's property or person. I can tell you the Church coddles pedophiles. I can tell you your mystical cannibalism is so much bullshit. Hell, back in college I used a page from the Gideon's Bible to roll a joint (that Word of God gets you fucked up). And it's all constitutional (well, the rolling a joint part is obviously subject to debate, but the blaspheming is definitely constitutional). And to equate symbolic blasphemy with the Holocaust? That's just fucked up.

Not content to just demonstrate their utter lack of legal understanding, they also show their unfamiliarity with the university and with these little things called facts:

The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom. Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.

A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach. Tolerating such behavior by university officials is equally repugnant as it lends credibility to the act of religious hatred.

That's so cute. They seem to have this vision of PZ standing before his Intro to Microbiology class, blood dripping from his beard, gleefully desecrating the Host while giggling manically, "Kill Jesus! Kill Jesus!" It's almost a shame to have to inform them that the desecration to place in PZ's private home, on his own time, and the results posted on his private blog - oh yeah, and that what he does as a private citizen is none of the university's goddamned business (which, fortunately, his employer realizes).

I'm sure one of these priests is praying for my soul right now. But if their theological skills are on a par with their grasp of logic or law, I'm sure there's a very confused Buddha somewhere wondering why these fucking Catholics won't leave him the fuck alone.

Tobacco madness!

It's hard to know what's most delightful about this report from the UK on the travails of the Dutch coffee house:

But the new law bans tobacco inside cafés and restaurants, meaning cannabis users are now forced to light up potent and heady pipes and joints loaded with pure marijuana.

Sophie, a 20-year-old student from Manchester, did not enjoy the experience of smoking neat "skunk", a powerful cannabis hybrid blamed for higher rates of mental illness among some drug users.

Sorry about that. Just had to get that out of the way. Ahem. Where were we?

"This stuff is much stronger than we are used to back at home. We were off our heads too quickly and I have been very sick," she said.

Olli, a young Swedish tourist, described how the tobacco ban was driving smokers onto the streets and spoiling the coffee shop experience.

"It has always been about being with other people inside the café. It is not the same standing outside in the street," he said. "If it is pure it is more expensive and it gives you a cough."

Okay - I just don't get the European custom of ruining perfectly good weed with tobacco. It's too strong? Don't smoke the entire spliff! Save some for later! Pinch off a little and do a bong-hit. You have options, people!

Peter, a middle aged Dutchman, blamed Christian politicians, making up the coalition government, for a backdoor attempt to close down coffee shops.

"It is a Christian Taliban. They want to impose a Christian ideology on the Netherlands. These are people who still think women are second class citizens."

I'm not completely up on the political scene in the Netherlands, but I do feel compelled to point out that you can still fucking smoke pot in the coffee shops. Smoke your cig outside! Jeebus, I suppose it's a small sign of progress that they've moved past comparing it to the Nazi occupation.

The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority has trained 200 inspectors to detect the difference between a "mixed or a pure joint".

Oh?

Are there job openings? Because we have a highly trained cadre of experts who would sooner smoke banana peels before adulterating their reefer with tobacco. And I hear they're underemployed.

Don't mess with Texas

What PZ sez:

You are free to believe whatever wacky nonsense you want — you can believe moody teenagers are possessed by demons, and you can believe that cutting out the hearts of virgins will guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, and you can even believe that barbecued babies are especially delicious — but you are not free to act on those beliefs in a way that infringes the rights of other people. The Texas court, in its zeal to protect religious beliefs, has gone too far and has endorsed the right of a church to do harm in the name of their god.

The Passion of Gummi Jesus

I thought this was too awesome not to post.

Go ahead and disagree with me in the comments.

h/t: Tbogg