Mad TV: Raging Rudolph

What, it's like, a seasonal classic of the dark holiday genre. Enjoy!

Spinal Tap--Christmas with the Devil

Now, that's what I would be talking about, if I was talking about that sort of thing--

Warren piece.

I guess it wouldn't take a whole lot of calculation to figure out where I land on the subject of Pastor Rick Warren giving the invocation at Barack Obama's inaguration--or would it?

On one hand, I have to disapprove. I'm not religious. Actually, I disagree with religion most of the time because it's arbitrary, and uses utter speculative crap like "God says so" as justification. I'm actually not really keen on the concept of an invocation in the first place. On that same hand, I'm in favor of gay rights, and actually everybody's civils rights, including--you guessed it, atheist rights. And I'm a pretty big proponent of women's rights, too, being all girly, and so forth. That being the case, the pastor has said some things I wonder at, and really don't think represent openness, inclusiveness, and dialogue with all people, and especially not the people I identify with. Instead, I see dogma and bigotry.

On the other hand, I respect Rick Warren's right to speak publically at an event to which he was invited, as a matter of freedom of speech, and Barack Obama's having extended an invite to him, as a matter of freedom of assembly. I question Obama's political sense in choosing a person for the invocation who offends many of those who supported him, but I understand that Pastor Waren had him speak at Saddleback some time two years back, and he might be returning a favor, as well as sending a message to those people of faith who did not support him (but might be mollified by the presense of the popular minister), that he will also be their president.

I was born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday. I get that these things can be deliberate choices, and can be intended as "messages" and so on. But my hope is that Obama meant no more than to extend an honor to a person who once extended him one, and that that is the actual end of that. And I am definitely aware of why so many people have blogged and posted to fora regarding this choice as if it were a meaningful thing--a deliberate slight, and a sign of things to come.

We want change. Not a change of words, and not a change of pitch and tone. Not a change for a minute. We worked for change, and fought for change. People put change on their credit card on Obama's site. People demonstrated for change. People tried to represent the change by demonstrating post-partisan positivity in their arguments with other people. For a little while, we talked about something good that was going to come, and not about the negative crap that was going on--that was what Obama's administration was supposed to be about. And looking at a good part of Saddleback ministry, people have read the news--same old shit. Gays need to get theirselves together, says them. Atheists have no business in politics, and women--you have no rights--you need a man serving over you and you don't own your body, and by the by, disabled people, don't expect any cure from stem cell research.

You look that over, and it's a hard load to swallow--no offense intended by the picturesque imagery, for the always-seeing-dirt-inclined. It's a hard load to swallow, to wake up to the idea that Pastor Rick and his very large megachurch are mainstream.

Mainstream.

But your reality isn't. You love who you love, and you might be a female or you might have just found out you have Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or some other thing, or you might already have three kids and not be able to afford that one you have in you, right now. You might have just had your state tell you your marriage means nothing, and you will lose your rights, because, in part, his church funded a b.s. proposition where the majority got to decide if a minority deserved fundamental human rights.

Pastor Rick loves all of you, by the way--he just doesn't have an easy answer for you. Just like he might not have a response to the politically engaged atheist who wonders what he thinks is the relationship of church to state, or why he finds me or people like me unsuitable for leadership.

There are conservatives who are unhappy with the situation as well. They think Pastor Warren is betraying his beliefs by giving the invocation for a pro-choice politician who doesn't represent conservative values. Part of me wonders if there isn't something to say about a decision that irritates peole on all sides. But I think my overall concern, having read what so many others have had to say on the subject, is that whatver the reason for his choice, I do not think Obama was aware of how really offended so many of his supporters would be. He could not have--because so much of the language used at different times has really been, whether the pastor recognized it as such or not--hateful. And yes, I do think a belief system can cloud a person's awareness of how their words and intentions are perceived.

He has, most gallingly, compared gay marriage to incest, polygamy, and pederasty, adding that he wouldn't want to change the definition that's been in place for marriage for the last 5000 years. I hate to be a bore, but incest, polygamy, and pederasty are well-documented as actually being acceptable forms of marriage in different cultures within the past 5000 years (incest was run-of-the-mill amongst your Egyptian pharoahs, and first cousin-marriage not unheard of among European royalty. Polygamy is still practiced in Islamic culture, and was known in the Bible, and arranged marriages often enough occurs with at least one partner, generally the female, being a minor.) And to add to that insult (to intelligence!) he has suggested that those who might be biologically "wired" to be homosexual are immature not to defer their impulses, pointing out that he would like to make love to every beautiful woman he sees--

Which is nonsense. He sees them, and he may be stimulated--it passes. He is no more likely to hump the leg of a good-looking woman than I might be, or than a lesbian might be. Orientation is more than sex. It's more than a fleeting impulse. And it isn't diverted onto a more acceptable surrogate. He is saying he can still make love to a woman, and sort of fulfill his desire. I can't make love to a woman, and still be mature. Nor could a man of years and experience equal to Pastor Warren, make love to the man he desires, without having giving into an immature impulse.

It's insulting. It's saying to people "You don't know your mind, and you can't figure out how to be happy." It's saying, "My church knows what you need." But how does that reason? God doesn't take the place of that desire to love and be loved--by your equal. Even if you admitted a loving and all-understanding God, and a commensurate level of love raining down--it isn't the same. Not that same as sharing a bathroom sink, or bitching over a crappy movie together.
Not the same as figuring out how to live, or if it comes to that, survive the death of the other. Even God-believing gays want *lives*. Women want respect. Atheists deny all that crap he's saying altogether, because the truth is, sometimes "purpose-driven" means answering to yourself. Reaching your own conclusions about morality--and not giving in to the God-botherers.

I still respect that he will speak and that Obama asked him, and don't even a little bit hope a "Zapatos-tista" (my new coinage for a shoe-thrower--part Zapatista, part the Spanish for "shoe") will disrupt his homily. On the whole, I see his "elevation" in being picked to speak as kind of a paradoxically good thing:

Rick Warren is viewed as mainstream, but I don't think all he's ever said has been "vetted" as we say in politics. Perhaps with a little rational examination of what he thinks and believes, more people will decide, rationally, whether they also feel the same. And perhaps, in being exposed to so many more people, and witnessing this other movement (this Obama, hope and change thing), maybe the Pastor, who has some good things going in re: poverty-awareness and AIDS--even if he has paired with some damn scary people in Africa--might see things clearer.

In other words--I have hope for him. He might be saved.

Give until it hurts, you know what I'm saying?

Now, even if I was a "War on Xmas" type atheist, which I'm not, I would still admit that giving is a very good thing. When you have carefully selected something very nice for someone you care about and they genuinely like it, it's a good feeling. No one can deny that joy it gives you to know you've touched somebody by maybe giving them that little luxury they wouldn't have gotten for themselves, or that hard-to-find something they might not have had the time to track down. There is something to be said for the "spirit of giving." When I have the money, I like to give to charities sometimes, and even when I don't necessarily have the money. Sometimes putting a coat I don't use in the Goodwill box or giving up some spare cans of veggies to a soup kitchen just makes you feel like you've done your part a little. It's a good feeling, and Christmas kind of inspires you to do those kinds of things.

The flip side of giving in the holiday season is knowing you aren't going to please everybody. There's always that person you know who might not really agree with you all year long, and you dread having to spend a holiday across the table from them, with their Limbaugh-quoting, and the Palin-loving (other holidays it was Buchanan, or Reagan, or Nixon, or who-knows-who--just whoever you are diametrically opposed to at the moment). They tell the racial jokes, they say things about gays and liberals....they eyeball you, the patchouli-smelling, vegetable-eating, ACLU-card-carrying whatever you are, and you just wonder how you can make them feel the holiday spirit, in your own special way. But how to do it--their taste just isn't your taste. It just can't be ties, cologne, or a fruit basket, again.

I have an idea--give in their name to the charity of your choice. That's right. Give until it hurts. If they are NRA people--you go and donate money in their name to the ACLU, because after all, the 2nd Amendment is a perfectly good amendment. The ACLU would be in favor of it. They would also support the free-speech rights of Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh and other concerned talk-radio fans, who worry that free speech will be protected in the face of a possibly proposed law that might try and make media be more fair and balanced. They are totally "win" on the subject of free speech!

If they are deeply religious, you be sure and donate in their name to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. You let them know that your donation will keep the wicked state and the Princes of this World away from their religion. If they like to talk about strong family values, you can donate a little bit to the Victory Fund which shows a firm commitment to supporting everybody's family, and making sure they have equality. And if you know someone who is an American super-patriot--what better than donating something for them to People For the American Way. What does the name say? America! The whole, beautiful, diverse, working, dreaming, living, equal, lot of us. They really support America's values, like the Buill of Rights, and our civil righs, and stuff like that--because America is fundamentally progressive if you actually look at our revolutionary history, and about liberty! So the person told that you donated to them in their name will just have to be pleased! (But you might want to keep a fruit basket in reserve.)

If you happen to be one of those lucky so-and-so's, though, who don't have a politically problematic gift recipient, but still want to do a little something, and particularly if you might be a smidgen cash-strapped, here's some links--you might still click your way to something good, or you might find an inexpensive gift for somebody, or you might save the links and pass them on, too, and you know what?

It's all good.










Get yourself a hemp t-shirt, or a recycled material shopping bag while you're at it. Its neat, its inexpensive, and it might do a little good. And if you do it in the name of some old grump who doesn't do charity--even better. I never saw a reason why you can't have charity *and* spite in the same transaction.


Edit: I'm too bourbon-soaked and it's too late at night to make the ever-loving buttons work, so I'll just post links:

The Hunger
Site


The Breast Cancer Site


The Rainforest Site

and the Ecology Site.

Shoed!

It's like he's unpopular or something.

Homegrown Sexual jihadists--Redux.

Earlier this week, I posted, and then deleted, a somewhat badly written post regarding Pat Boone's rather dumb World Net Daily post equating the protesters against Prop. 8 to the Mumbai terrorism and I basically was angling at his total uncoolness, and I deleted because, in exactly so many words, I had referred to him as being "kind of a douche." My deletion of the post had a bit to do with my recognition that I had been BUTI (blogging under the influence) and my recognition in the light of morning that one (even if that one is Pat Boone, who is quite possibly using a political viewpoint as a gimmick to kind of be relevant, which was my limping insinuation--all the worse if he actually does subscribe to the idea that terrorism and dissent are the same thing, mind you) is not "a douche" merely because one has engaged in a massively hyperbolic analogy, and also, I realized that name-calling was childish of me.

Now, I don't strive to be much of anything more than extant as a blog. But I think I can try to maybe keep a standard of not resorting to name-calling, and mischaracterization of people. So in the interests of assuaging my guilt over doing two things I don't really like: a) posting something so dumb even I have to delete it, when anyone perusing my back-issues can see I've let typos, rambling, and even banality stand in prior posts; and b) actually highlighting my foibles, which I have in abundance, and like many an egotist, I shudder at revealing.

Pat Boone's article specifically offended me because I do not equate protest, or even incivility, with criminal mayhem and murder. I just seem to recognize a difference, there. The issue in Mumbai stems from a long-time grievance between groups of people identified by religion as well as by history, and the actions that took place are reprehensible. The terrorists of Mumbai did nothing to actually promote anything like sympathy for whatever their cause might be. It was violent and vehement, but there was nothing but the violence to view. The actions were not an expression of civil disobedience in the sense of expressing a point of view. They were expressly about intimidation. And this was what made them especially foul.

To contrast, the people who protested, physically, against certain churches in the wake of the passing of Prop 8, which does owe a lot to the support of some churches, and which interferes directly in the lives of gay people in America, was a form of civil disobedience, and had a clear message. They may have been rude because emotion was high, but that was not murderous, and intimidation was not the point. The point was making it known that the self-determination--the very households, of real people were affected by support that came from these places. They wanted to let people see that there were real actual gay people out there wanting to marry and have the full rights of that--and they went to those churches because their lives were politically affected by what was said at those pulpits.

The separation of church and state has been confused here by the attempts to legislate religion-based morality, and dissent against it is only appropriate. The assumptions that a majority should control the access to rights of a minority, or that a thing is necessarily wrong because some creed determines it as such, or that what even holds for one sect within a given creed should hold for all, are invalid suppostions. Rights are rights, regardless of whether one's group is the majority or minority--and the idea that marriage is a religious-based term becomes absurd in the face of the reality that there are many religions, any of which may have different criteria and not all are inherently opposed to homosexuality. Let me start a religion--The Little Church of "Penguins Do It" The first precept will be, "Verily, because there are gay penguins, and even rats do it sometimes regardless of sex, and oysters will even change sexes, nobody should give a damn who marries who, because really, who can keep track? And weddings are awesome, especially open bar ones, and people living together and loving each other is really awesome, too."

Not all churches would be opposed to gay marriages, and that should tell you something. Would everyone be cool if circumcisions were made legally mandatory because many churches thought they were important to have? (Even though the practice is found to be useful insofar as the spread of AIDs is concerned, I know foreskin-having men who are rather fond of the old prepuce. I kind of dig it myself.) Would you want to be restricted as to what "tribe" you could pull your partner from? Would you want your goverment to tell you what to wear or eat because of some majority religious viewpoint?

The Prop. 8 protesters are legitimately mad, and not just gassing about and not even really very violently. The Mumbai thing is understood with a whole different frame work tht involves colonialism and partitioning and Kashmir, and some train explosion several years back and a whole bunch of other violent stuff.

They really can't be compared. But I will still say that Pat Boone is not cool,





and white shoes are dorky, and there should be a "Godwin's Law" corollary regarding terrorism, and also that Newt Gingrich is equally stupid for saying that there's something like a secular and gay fascism going on. And in a more general sense, here's another precept of The Little Church of "Penguins Do it":

No, religious people, you are not being persecuted if other people simply don't agree with you. Disagreement is not persecution. Asking you very nicely to stop persecuting other people is also not a form of persecution. If you are asked not to persecute, don't go all pout-ragy. Just go back to your faith and good works stuff. And try not to spend a whole lot of money on denying other people their civil rights. It's a recession, they say. You could've fed the hungry and what not. Clothed people. Erected shelters.

Also, "Homegrown Sexual Jihadists" would still make a very banging band name.

Nothing But Sunshine Hanging Over Him

Just so it can't be said I never kick a fellow Democrat when he's down, I'm about to kick a fellow Democrat while he's down, just because the man probably doesn't even know he's down, yet, and because kicking him just seems like the right thing to do.

This guy, Illinois Governor (yes, D) Rod Blagojevic, got arrested for aggravated stupidity in a public sector. Apparently, he tried, among other audacious things, to sell the US Senate seat of President-Elect Barack Obama. And if he could not get his price, he was going to take it himself, because it was looking like being Governor was going to get his sorry behind impeached. The Chicago Trib, not surprisingly, has a bunch of the details.

At this point, I will admit that compared to this fool, Sarah Palin (whose foibles I've followed with some interest) is, as a state governor, a reformer of incorruptible integrity, has a reasonable and even humble ego, and possesses an appropriate sense of the proprieties of her office. This guy is horrible.

But the things of note I take from what comes out about this guy is what a crazy ambitious mindset he had--he'd see what he could get for naming someone to Obama's seat? He'd try to work some leverage on the Obama people--who, "No Drama Obama?" Yeah, Obama was the guy who wasn't cool with Philly Democrats' time-honored traditions regarding "walking-around money" in my city, and always seems to have recognized that his business had to be "Caesar's wife pure" and he was supposed to be playing that corrupt game--even if he possibly did think Valerie Jarrett would have been great in that job? Please! There's rumors on the internets Hot Rod even tried to lean on Rahm Emanuel. And that's one good reason why he's so busted.

If Blagojevic ever woke up with balls so huge he thought he'd lean on the President-Elect's chief of staff, and that chief of staff happened to be Rahm Emanuel, I do not know how he air-lifted himself out of bed. But that he somehow made it to a telephone and thought Obama and his people were "motherfuckers" who'd give him anything but gratitude is a display of testicular elephantiasis that should make the record-books. Talk about the old battle of ant and rubber-tree plant. But that he ever thought he'd turn things around by playing that game, that he'd get himself in that seat when he was already under investigation, that he didn't even barely consider he might've been under the kind of wire-taps even ACLU card-carrying lefties like me see as valid when he may have made self-incriminating statements regarding what he wanted in exchange for the position, and revealed how he was playing the potential candidates, and even had some angle on seeing a run in 2016?

That's some ego. Not to give him or his legal people any ideas, but his best defense might be sheer insanity.

Imagine

Odetta: You don't know my mind

Truth is beauty, that's all you know on earth and all you need to know.

Broke people stores and how I see it.

I went shopping two weeks ago and noticed something about the economy: the parking lots in Walmart and the local Dollar Tree store, and the Big Lots, were crazy busy. These are the places you know to shop at when you are looking for bargains. They are "broke people stores". And I was trying to find parking space.

This week, I shopped and saw some things were bought out even in "broke pople stores"--good breakfast cereals and canned fruit. Ramen soups were shopped-over. Even at the liquor store, I saw the bottom shelf was more sparse. That tells me people are buying more at the "broke people stores" and buying cheaper goods as well. Even cheaper booze--which is worrisome, as the brown stuff in the plastic jugs is all about the drunk. And not the drinking. If you go from Jack Daniels or Old Grandad to Evan Williams, you are still kind of in the bourbon neighborhood. If you slip down to something called "Old Tymes" or the like, you are sucking on whiskey-flavored grain alcohol you are most probably mixing with no-frills diet cola or ice. And you mean to drink off how broke you are for the weekend. Nonetheless, I have drunk that broke-ass booze, even that "Zapatas" tequila and "Bankers Club" gin. It won't kill you. But be sparing with it. It's harsh. Ulcers, baby. Headaches.

I think you can easily tell how the economy is doing by what your retail stores are selling, and what they can keep in stock. Don't expect sales on peanut butter and tuna, I'm thinking. You might want to pick up what you find that's good in canned food. If there is a sale on peanut butter and canned soup--invest. Look for good prices on bread, even. You can freeze bread, if you need to. Start thinking even more about whole grains, for the nutritive value. And start going to farmers' markets and places like Produce Junction, to get lots of veggies and fruit cheap--it'll really help you eat well.

And don't be automatically thinking "gift cards" for Christmas. Those stores might not be around tomorrow, and gift cards always were a little lame. You know? Unless someone really always shops somewhere? Like, you could always get me an Amazon.com gift certificate, but many people don't have a bad book jones, or store loyalty. They might even favor cash, for whatever they need to do, depending on their situation. Think practical, this season.

These are your "broke people" tips for the day.

Obligatory post-election mention--Saxby. Saxby Chambliss.

King of the Wild Georgian Frontier. To hear Right-wingers, we are all Georgians, now, and his re-election was a push-back against radical Obamism. This would tie in very well with the idea that we are a center-right nation. Even if Jim Martin, who is a decent fellow, was nonetheless appparently running from the center and on not being a schmuck. I say it means Georgia's voters kept in mind that Chambliss was a man of many deferments and no commitment to the US armed services when he could have served in Vietnam, and had in fact voted against the welfare of our troops a few times in our current wars, and that he was a little loose with the truth on occasion and kind of a jackass, and decided that he would be an exact balance against all the things an Obama Administration would stand for. Fair, you see. And balanced.

What a peach.

The Democrats will not see 60 seats. The Coleman/Franken weirdness of a recount is possibly going to come down to single digits? I am not even going to pin a hope on Franken.

I'd still like to see Al in though. I've read his books, and he's a thoughtful guy. He might make a really good senator on the basis of brio and the kind of truth it takes to make good comedy. I think he'd be a great successor to the admirable and lamented Paul Wellstone, and "play from his heart" in respect to how he voted in the Senate.

But it's really already decided by the voters, and will be decided by the votes they decide to count.

All in all, that these two races were as close as all this: Georgia and Minnesota, suggests that a shift is taking place. Even though Chambliss won a run-off (in a race he technically should have won election-night) and Coleman, who has his ethics issues, is going to win or lose on the slimmest of leads, suggests a pull--

Center-center.

Not Center-left. Just a desire to see competent people and responsible adult people and people who know what they are talking about, in charge.

In Georgia, they went for incumbency.

In Minnesota, they may have been torn by Franken's "celebrity" versus Coleman's known....um.... what's a positive way to say "corrupt-ass, living on other peoples' dime, RW shill MF-er?" Oh yeah....incumbency.