Tripping around Europe, for Crist's sake!

Charlie Crist, the Republican guv of Florida, bundled up some two dozen folks to take a two-week trip to Europe to "foster" foreign business for the Sunshine State.

One can't help wonder why his fiancee, her sister, nine bodyguards, and photographer had to schlep along. I didn't get invited. Of course, I'm not his biggest fan, but still.

Crist and entourage flew to London, to Paris, to St. Petersburg (not Florida) and Madrid.

Initially their travel budget was a "mere" $225,000 but skyrocketed to $430,000 by the time they hit the dirt back in Florida. Of course, when that many people spend $148,000 on eating, drinking, sleeping, transporting themselves, and "incidentals," it do add up!


Florida currently has a $2 billion budget deficit; a big problem. And that's exactly why Charlie and friends had to take this trip! Got to get more overseas bizness, said Charlie's office, as that will be "instrumental in keeping our state from greater distress."

Maybe Charlie, being a Republican, confesses to the belief one has to spend money to make money. But did they need to go "first class"? Did they really need to lay out $1,300 on minibar refreshments and $320 on electric fans to keep ol' Charlie cool when speechifying?

The trip occurred in July. Do you suppose part of the reason was to give Charlie some "foreign policy" credentials the better to boost his chances of becoming McCain's VP candidate?

You think?


Some feel maybe Charlie should have stayed home considering the state of Florida's economy and to show solidarity with the large number of Floridians who are facing foreclosure because they've lost the jobs needed to pay their mortgages.

For some people the trip created a "perception" problem. A short time ago, House Speaker Ray Sansom, "landed a part-time, $110,000 job at Northwest Florida College after years of championing the college's funding projects."

What a controversy began to brew, Crist downplayed things by suggesting "It may be more of a perception problem. ... Sometimes stories like this can get going and conclusions can be implied that may not be true. ... Don't assume that a couple of facts can be laid together necessarily lead to a particular attack."


While some have compared Crist's tripping about Europe with Sarah Palin's profligacy, perhaps this comment by an anonymous person sums up how many Floridians feel about Mr. Crist's trip:

"Is Crist kidding??? Seriously, 'a perception problem'? This guy takes the cake.

"How are: 9 bodyguards, $1300 minibar tab, fiancee's sister riding along, 'perception problems'?

"Hey Crist the 'perception' you are a good governor is a 'problem'!


There's more here.

"Rice ready" cars

It isn't surprising that O.C. Welch hails from South Carolina. South Carolina is the great state that gave us Strom Thurmond and now Jim DeMint.

What's one more racist from Carolina south?

Welch runs a Ford dealership near Hardeeville. He's angry because his car sales have taken a dive. He decided the way to deal with that was to place an ad on local radio stations blasting people who dare buy cars from Toyota.

"All you people that buy all your Toyotas and send that money to Japan, you know, when you don't have a job to make your Toyota car payment, don't come crying to me. All those cars are rice ready. They're not road ready."


Rice ready? Is that an accusation of shoddy workmanship? Hopefully not, as Toyota manufactures 60% of their vehicles in the U.S. of A. Toyota puts 36,600 Americans to work building their cars.

Rice ready? Every Ford vehicle I've had was nothing but trouble, starting with a new hardtop in 1957! By the 1980's I was sick of dealing with American-made cars that fell apart on the road. My new 1996 Toyota Camry was a dream. After seven years it still looked and drove as good as new.


Floyd Mori, executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League, was not too happy with Mr. Welch, and noted that Welch's "rice ready" remark was "a blatant, ignorant, racist remark from somebody who should know better."

Yup!

If Mr. Welch is angry that fewer people are buying his Ford vehicles, he might want to put at least some of the blame on the Ford company which, like Chrysler and GM, keeps building cars that people don't want to drive.

But, again, Mr. Welch is from South Carolina, so you can't expect much.

Christianist protest in Olympia

Olympia, Washington. The Capitol city.

As I recall, it began about three years ago when Guv. Gregoire allowed a menorah to be installed in the Washington State Capitol building. Sometime after that a "holiday" tree went up. This year, the Freedom from Religion group put up their now infamous sign suggesting that god does not exist and we'd be better off without religion which is nothing but myth and superstition.

Christianists went nuts! In fact, a couple of days ago, some unknown culprits stole the FFR sign. It was found, however, and returned.


Why are christianists pissed? Well, because, they are convinced they have the right to hang their stuff in public buildings and it's OK if "good" Jews do their thing with their menorahs, but anti-religious people have no place in this god-fearing country!

So, on Sunday, December 7, about 500 people, mostly christianist lovers of the god who loves all people, gathered on the capitol steps to denounce those goddamn atheists who think they have a right to express their beliefs, too!

One christianist partisan, the Rev. Kenneth Hutcherson, pastor of a "bible" church, said "...we want the state of Washington and the governor to represent everyone in the state. But just because you must represent everyone in the state doesn't mean that you put up with intolerance from the people that you represent."

Huh? Let's decode that. Everyone should be represented except those that christianists don't agree with and take offense at.

And to suggest that religion is myth and superstition equals "intolerance."

Hmm. There's something awfully "intolerant" about that position.


Then State Rep. Jim Dunn, a Repugnican (naturally) from Vancouver, cried "It's time to chase out of the house of God all the unbelievers and evildoers."

What? Is the state Capitol the "house of God"? Are unbelievers evildoers ... unlike the evildoer George W. Bush?


The situation deteriorated even more. Hutcherson's church, those good bible-believing, god-loving folks, put up a sign mocking the atheists' sign! Someone or some other groups erected a nativity scene and two other religious signs.


To give a sense of the intelligence and education of the very nice christianist trolls who attended this rally, some quotes:

"It's fine if you want to express your religion, but just no hate language."

"We love everyone and let's be kind to one another. ... This was a way our family decided that we had to stand up for Jesus."

"... the sign is an in-your-face hate sign. It's not in keeping with the displays of the season."

"We all have freedom of speech, but for them to put down religion, isn't that more than freedom of speech?"


What have we been teaching in our public schools? Obviously, all of these good people missed that part as to what freedom of speech means. They didn't get the stuff about separation of church and state, either. And they failed to learn that by the time people living on this side of the pond decided they'd rather be independent than pay any more taxes to King George, they fought for and then established a government free of any damned religion!

Makes sense. At the time of the Revolution, only about 4% of our population darkened the doors of the church.

And that's why there are no references to God in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Men like Jefferson regularly mocked the Christian faith and insisted on the secular nature of our nation.

That's also why all of this hoopla in Olympia is quite insane! The governor of the state of Washington should throw the whole damn bunch out on the street. No religious signs belong in a state building for any reason! There is no establishment of religion in this country.

And whether the Hutcherson's and the Dunn's of this world like it or not, the anti-religionists and the atheists have just as much right to express their beliefs as they do! But get all the religious crap and the anti-religious crap out of the hallowed halls of government!


[The photo is from Mission Confident, and you can read a christianist take on this "rally" here.]

Whining about wine in the U.K.

This from the telegraph.co.uk.

In Beit Jala, a Jerusalem suburb, a Roman Catholic order called the Salesians of Don Bosco has been making organic wine for about 100 years. For some time, now, they've been selling a bunch of it to Roman Catholic and Anglican parishes, as well as to religious houses and university chaplaincies in the United Kingdom.

Not at the moment, however. For some reason Israel has refused to allow the wine through the Hebron checkpoint so it cannot get to Haifa to be shipped to Europe. No one seems to know why but the Israeli Army is reported to have said allowing the wine to pass into Israel may involve a security risk.

Maybe there are teeny little monks hidden under the cork? Wouldn't want any teeny little monks running around loose in Israel! Monkee business, you know!


Della Shenton, employed by the Roman Catholic diocese of Plymouth, has been involved in the flow of wine from Beit Jala to Europe and is terribly distressed. Even though 4,000 bottles of the altar wine have already been imported this year, another 1,000 bottles were on order to be used for the Christmas festivities.

"What this is doing is causing havoc and a lot of distress," said Ms. Shenton. "It is sad that this Christmas Christians are being denied the opportunity to be at one with the people of Bethlehem by drinking its wine."


Havoc and distress? That seems a little over the top!

It is true, I believe, that for Christians, the Eucharist or Mass involves, through partaking of the bread and wine (body and blood), becoming one with Christ and the worldwide community of believers?

Can Christians in the U.K. not be "at one with the people of Bethlehem" by drinking wine from South Africa or Australia or Chile or the Napa Valley?

Does wine from the Salesians of Beit Jala become better "blood" than wine from the local pub?


Omigod. All this havoc and distress!

There's sure a lot of humorous hocus pocus that goes on amongst the churches at Christmas!

In God (weak, impotent) We Trust!

The fundamentalist christianist god is really weak and powerless. He just can't seem to stop these damn atheists from putting up signs that get fundamentalist christianists all bent out of shape.

Because their god is so weak, fundamentalist christianists have put together a "national advocacy group" called In God We Trust, which is a misnomer if there ever was one.

In God We Trust was established precisely because the folks who established it DO NOT trust in God!


You can tell because they're in an uproar over signs by the Freedom from Religion Foundation which suggest that gods, angels, devils, heaven and hell do not exist and that religion is myth and superstition "that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Bishop Council Nedd, (who ever heard of the name, "Council Nedd"?) the chief and very righteous poohbah of In God We Trust is UPSET!

"In God We Trust will oppose any effort to place these signs in any state capital or in any government location in Washington, D.C.," he said. "These signs have nothing in common with a menorah, a nativity scene or a Christmas tree. They are an attempt by anti-religious bigots to equate a belief in God with enslavement and to ridicule the majority of Americans who believe in God."


Ah, yes. Actually, the signs have something to do with a Christmas tree, for Christmas trees derive from pagan celebrations. And the people of the Freedom from Religion Foundation are not bigots like Bishop Nedd is a bigot, as they simply want to present an alternative viewpoint. The bigotry is all on the side of the bishop who hate atheists with a passion and thus tries to deprive them of their First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the sign does not "equate a belief in God with enslavement [other than in a mental or spiritual sense] and it does not ridicule anyone.

Nedd is not too bright. He whines "Why do these zealots have the right to post signs on public property attacking their countryment?"

Well, bishop, as we said, the signs do not "attack" anyone, and if you think you have the right to erect religious signs and figures on public property, then those who disagree with you have the same right. Read the damn Constitution!


Ultimately, it comes down to irony. Bishop Nedd and his cohorts simply do NOT trust in God! That's why they are out in the cold, secular wind, blowing hot against atheists and other nogoodniks: God doesn't have the power to stop the infidels by herself.

Or maybe God doesn't care? That would sure put hair back on a bald head!


Actually, this nonsense should stop. Throw all this crap out of our hallowed government buildings and off of our hallowed government property.

And Bishop Nedd should go home and drink a couple of gallons of eggnog and mellow out! Especially since the FFR had no plans to erect their sign in the nation's capitol in the first place!!!!


More here.

Holsters and the Department of Homeland Stupidity

[Photo of a Don Hume "Duty Holster." I have no idea if this is the DHS holster.]

It really isn't that hard to find holsters that fit a particular pistol and do not cause people to shoot themselves in the foot.

Unless, of course, you're the U.S. Department of Homeland Stupidity.


Pilots flying our airplanes are now allowed to carry a weapon. Could be a good thing. Sometimes maybe not. Depends, it seems, at least in part, on the holster. On March 22, the pilot of a USAirways flight accidentally discharged his .40 caliber pistol. The bullet went through the cockpit wall and fuselage but no one was hurt. The pilot was fired.

Now, however, the inspector general of the DHS says that the design of holsters used by pilots increases the possibility a weapon may go off accidentally. "We examined the holster and observed that its design renders the weapon vulnerable to accidental discharge if improperly handled."


Well, now. Any holster is going to "render [a] weapon vulnerable to accidental discharge if improperly handled."

It appears that the Department of Homeland Stupidity realizes that the holster they bought for pilots is defective but they are still trying to cover their collective ass.

So DHS is looking at "new holster systems that meet program safety, security and tactical accessibility."


What's really scary is that these are the very people who are supposed to ensure the safety and security of the people of the United States.

Holy crap!

Obama stands up for factory workers

[Photo by Metroblossom at Flickr]

In Chicago, Republic Windows and Doors shut its windows and doors. It appears that Bank of America is involved, perhaps preventing the company from meeting its obligation to the workers.

Workers who were let go staged a sit-in over the weekend. They are pissed. Bosses gave them three day's notice; they're supposed to get 60 days. They also claim they are owed severance and vacation pay.

Meanwhile, Congress is passing out billions, bailing out companies running to ruin, the result of their own greed and mismanagement! Not only so, but their chicanery set in motion an economic crisis not seen since 1929! And as if to complete this surreal picture, the CEO of Merrill Lynch has the unmitigated gall to insist he "deserves" a $10 million bonus for his "work" in 2008!


Meanwhile, President-elect Obama jumped into the fray on the side of the workers. "The workers who are asking for the benefits and payments that they have earned," said Obama, "I think they're absolutely right and understand that what's happening to them is reflective of what's happening across this economy."

Obama didn't quit there, either. As part of a more extensive statement, he said "...number one, I think that these workers, if they have earned their benefits and pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.

"Number two, I think it is important for us to make sure that, moving forward, any economic plan we put in place helps businesses to meet payroll so we are not seeing these kinds of circumstances again."


Finally we have someone soon to be in charge who doesn't think that the first thing to do when ordinary people are in trouble is cut taxes for the rich!

Finally we have someone who walks the walk instead of merely talking the talk.

Finally we have someone who actually gives a damn instead of pretending to care while pulling the rug out from those most in need!

Finally we have someone who recognizes that millions of Americans hanging by their fingernails to a sinking ship as the sharks begin to circle also need a "bail-out."

Finally!

In Detroit, when all else fails, they try prayer

Some people in Detroit, finding themselves at the end of their collective ropes, are giving prayer a go.

I wonder how many of these folks have tried prayer before only to discover that the line between earth and heaven somehow got disconnected.

But now they're desperate.

Nick Bunkley, writing for The New York Times, describes last Sunday's service at the Pentecostal Greater Grace Temple in Detroit where Bishop Charles H. Ellis III, surrounded by three shiny new SUVs in the chancel area, led his congregation, many of which had some connection to the auto industry, in prayer.

"I don't know what's going to happen," said the bishop, "but we need prayer."

A couple of U.A.W. vice presidents repeated that theme. "We have done all that we can do in this union, so I turn it over to the Lord," said General Holiefield. James Settles Jr., told the worshipers "to continue your prayers, so we can see a miracle next week."

Bishop Ellis, in a moment of theological lucidity, suggested the congregation not pray that Congress give the car companies a bail-out, but rather that the car companies survive the economic meltdown.


Desperate times call for desperate measures as someone once said somewhere I think. The people in Michigan are desperate. Hope is fleeting. Thus, Bishop Ellis provides this quotation from Romans: "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us."

Whatever that means.

Cardinal Adam Maida, Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Detroit area, sent out a letter to the faithful encouraging them to keep the faith. "At this darkest time of the year, we proclaim that Christ is our light and Christ is our hope," saith the AB.


All of these spiritual exhortations are mere placebos, and prayer is going to get the people nowhere. They might sound good and make folks feel better, but they're not going to get the job done.

Archbishop Maida knows that. So he got together with a bunch of other religious poohbahs from Detroit "to call on Congress to approve the $34 billion in government-backed loans that they automakers have requested."

It would appear that, at this point, it is more effective to "call on Congress" rather than to call on God.

Hail to the Prince of Peace

As we approach the festival of Christmas, Christians around the world will be celebrating the birth of the one called The Prince of Peace.

The image is from John Moore/Getty Images. It is located in the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq.

More here.

The simple life

Page 13, Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008.

An ad by The De Beers Family of Companies, titled "Here's to Less."

The copy begins: "Our lives are fill with things. We're overwhelmed by possessions we own but do not treasure. Stuff we buy but never love. To be thrown away in weeks rather than passed down for generations."

Blah, blah, blah.


How do we overcome this craving for things we "own but do not treasure," that "we buy but never love"?

How do we salute living with "less"?


Well, hell, we buy more. Not only that but we buy some really expensive THING, like a De Beers diamond!


How dumb do they think we are?

On gay marriage and the Bible

Sometimes I don't agree with Newsweek editor, Jon Meacham, at all.

But he's right on in his editorial in this weeks issue.

Meacham describes the schism in the Episcopal Church noting that it roots in the "conservative forces of reaction to the ecclesiastical and cultural acceptance of homosexuality" who claim "their opposition to the ordination and the marriage of gays ...[is] irrevocably rooted in the Bible--which they regard as the 'final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.'"

Aha! Meacham will have none of that! Whatever one's position on gay rights, he says, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism."

"Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."


I've argued time and again that fundamentalists who want to pretend that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, fail to take that collection of material seriously, but rather use it as a magical talisman to justify whatever it is they want to hate at the moment.

Bishop Krister Stendahl, of Sweden, once said that the Bible is a very dangerous book, especially in the hands of the ignorant, for every evil cause on the face of the earth has been and is defended on the basis of the Bible.


Meacham notes first of all that sexual orientation is not something one chooses, "but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color."

Then, even more to the point: "The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals."

Leaving the word, "sacrament," out of the argument, for that is a specifically religious term which many would not understand, Meacham is again right on when he says "This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously ... since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts."

Agreeing with Dr. Stendahl, Meacham points out that biblical texts "have been ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human rights of women ... "

And all sorts of other evils...


But it is hard to see the light when you're bound between the covers of ancient darkness.

Vito Fossella going to jail - maybe

Vito Fossella, Republican representative from New York, was convicted of drunken driving and has been sentenced to five days in jail. He is to begin serving his sentence on December 19. His lawyer promised an immediate appeal the purpose of which is to postpone indefinitely his reporting to the clink.

Fossella, an ultra-right homophobic conservative, has other problems, too. When he was arrested for DUI back in May, it was revealed that he had been involved in an affair with an Air Force officer with whom he'd fathered a child. His wife and three children were not thrilled with the news.

This led to Fossella's decision not to seek re-election.

The best part is that a Democrat won his seat in the November election.


One less Repugnican hypocrite in Congress is always a cause for rejoicing!

Happy holidays!

The unreal world of George W. Bush

From The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind:

"Each morning, it is widely known, George W. Bush rises at 5:30, works out, brings his wife a cup of coffee, generally reads a religious text--the Bible or mini-sermons--and arrives at his desk by seven-thirty."

Shortly thereafter a "team" of confidants enter to tell him what he wants to know. What Bush doesn't want to know is details.

Suskind writes that "by the spring of 2003, it was becoming clear that the way policy was, or wasn't vetted, inside the White House was an extension of George W. Bush's leadership style. A president, it is often said, gets the White House he wants, and deserves."


George W. Bush "met America's foreign challenges with decisiveness born of a brand of preternatural, faith-based, self-generated certainty. ... Issues argued, often vociferously, at the level of deputies and principals rarely seemed to go upstream in their fullest form to the President's desk; and, if they did, it was often after Bush seemed to have already made up his mind based on what was so often cited as his 'instinct' or 'gut.'

This kind of go-it-alone stance was further exacerbated by his faith-based religious views and his tendency to sort out and define complex foreign policy issues in terms of good and evil.

And because Bush was not a detail man, he was not fed details. Or, as Suskind puts it, "hard, complex analysis" of both foreign and domestic issues were served to him as a "thin offering, passed through the filters of Cheney or rice, or not presented at all."

But that was what he wanted, for it gave him deniability and the flexibility to state his case without reference to facts, e.g., going to war against Iraq.

It allowed him to live in a cocoon or a world where reality rarely made an appearance; a world where peace became war and suppression became freedom, where even a failed flight-jockey could pretend to be a warrior and worse, a "war president."


This disconnect from reality came sharply into focus in an interview Bush gave Nadia Bilbassy-Charters of MBC TV (Middle East Broadcasting Center) on December 5.

One of the first things Bush mentioned was his first decision as President-elect: the color or rug for the Oval Office. While he delegated the choice to Laura, he told her "I want the rug to have a message, and that is 'optimistic guy goes to work here.'"

"Optimistic guy" is not the phrase most people would use to describe George W. Bush.

Bilbassy-Charters then asked him about his Greater Middle East Initiative, which was about democratizing and reforming the Middle East.

Bush responded: "...I believe we're in an ideological struggle against people who want to achieve their ideological vision through the use of violence and murder."

He doesn't see it. He doesn't see that is exactly what HE did! The neocon vision, adopted enthusiastically by Bush, is to remake the Middle East into our image, no matter how many people we have to kill to do it! Violence and murder define George W. Bush.


Bush went on to talk about his belief in a God who gives the "gift" of freedom. He said he felt a "moral calling" to do something about bringing freedom to people. And that's what has happened in the Middle East.

What Middle East is he talking about?


When asked about the Palestinian issue and whether Hamas should be part of the peace process, Bush said:

"I share the vision [of Tony Blair] that the only way there's going to be peace is where those who assume that violence is necessary to achieve peace cannot be part of the process. In other words, people have to renounce violence in order to have peace. It's contradictory to say, I am going to use violence to achieve my objectives, and oh, by the way, I'm for peace."

What is especially sad and depressing about this comment is it illuminates the befogged mind of this faux cowboy. One of the most "important" rationales [after WMDs lost their credence] Bush gave for his invasion of Iraq was the need to bring peace and democracy to that country. He does not understand that he's the culprit!


More delusion here. When asked whether or not Barack Obama will be able to "pick up from where you left" relative to the Palestinian problem and the "unresolved dispute" between Israel and the Palestinians, Bush said, "Well, I think we've left it in good shape. We've left it with the vision intact.

I wonder what Obama will think?


There's much more to the interview. Hopefully, it will find its way into the Bush archives for it is instructive as to how this president has operated for eight years in a delusional web spun by his own faith-based self-righteous morality and the secret chicanery of Dick Cheney and the neocons.

We are probably fortunate that this country is not worse off than it is. January 20 cannot come soon enough!

The entire transcript of this interview is here.

Religious delusion

In one of the comments made to an article in Cincinnati's Courier-Journal about the plan to jointly promote the Cincinnati Zoo and the Creation Museum, the writer said this:

"...I believe the Bible is true, but don't necessarily believe that all of the Creation Museum's message is true (for example, I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old). However, I am convinced that Jesus is the Son of God, and that belief does not depend on what someone else has told me."


The comment caught my attention for several reasons. First, in spite of what Ken Ham and other creationist kooks would like us to conclude, most Christians think creationism is nonsense and have no problem with the concept and thus the theory of evolution. They do not think the first chapter of Genesis is to be read literally, but poetically or metaphorically. They recognize that the second creation story (actually the oldest of the two) beginning in Gen. 2:4, contradicts the first story in Genesis 1 in several important ways, and that fact alone blows creationism out of the water.

The commenter recognizes the fallacy of the creationist viewpoint.


Secondly, the writer is "convinced" that Jesus is the Son of God." "Son of God" is a theological term which, while it does appear in the Gospel accounts, scholars cannot agree on its precise meaning. Jesus does not use this term to refer to himself. It is likely an attempt on the part of the Gospel writers to stress what they thought was Jesus' unique relationship to the "Father." Son of man," which is the more common term for Jesus, is generally conceded to refer to a human being and presupposes no divine attributes.

"Son of God," however, being a theological term, was taken to suggest divinity to 2nd century Christians in that the term was used of most gods in that era, and was also used in reference to the Roman emperor. Exactly how that works - how Jesus is the "Son of God," though, cannot be effectively described. The church fought over this concept for hundreds of years, sometimes violently, until the bishops came to an agreement -- more or less -- which resulted in the confusing and inscrutable terminology of the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed didn't clear up the issue, but muddied it. What does the term "Son of God" mean when the Son of God is God also, along with the Holy Ghost? The whole business breaks up in a jumble of gibberish and the term "Son of God" remains a meaningless concept because it cannot be defined with any precision whatsoever.


Finally, the commenter claims to believe Jesus was the Son of God all on his own: "...that belief does not depend on what someone else has told me."

Really? Where did it come from, then? Out of the blue? A voice in the heavens? A dream at night?

All religious belief derives from someone else! A belief in that "Jesus was the Son of God" derives from Christian writings that began in the 2nd century which were preserved by the church to the present time.

He believes only because someone else, who had read that Jesus was the Son of God and believed it, told him this was the right thing to believe!

Hopefully, he has also looked at some other options.

Cincinnati's Zoo and the Creation Museum

What were they thinking, those good folks in charge of the Cincinnati Zoo? Somehow they concluded it would be a good idea to do a little cooperative marketing with Kentucky's most famous monument to superstition and ignorance, the Creation Museum.

So, representatives from both institutions got together and worked out a system whereby visitors could buy a "combo ticket" which would admit them to both "attractions" for one price.

Sounded good ... at first.


But soon the zoo began "receiving dozens of angry calls and e-mails about the partnership, which offered reduced prices to anyone who bought tickets to the zoo's Festival of Lights and the museum's Christmas celebration, Bethlehem's Blessing."

Some folks said the zoo was scientific and the museum was religious. The zoo, being a scientific institution should not be, in any way, linked "to a place that argues man once lived side by side with dinosaurs."

Or, as Dr. James Leach, a Cincinnati radiologist, put it: "They seem like diametrically opposed institutions. The Cincinnati Zoo is one of this city's treasures. The Creation Museum is an international laughingstock."

PZ Myers, the University of Minnesota scientist, who writes at Pharyngula, claimed that "The Cincinnati Zoo is promoting an anti-science, anti-education con job run by ignorant creationists. ...

"I believe," said Myers, "the Cincinnati Zoo has betrayed its mission and its trust in a disgraceful way, by aligning themselves with a creationist institution that is a laughing stock to the rest of the world, and a mark of shame to the United States."

Myers also suggested people write to the zoo as well as to the Cincinnati papers to protest the zoo/museum alliance.

Within a few days, a worldwide e-mail campaign was in place, along with a zoo boycott.

The zoo caved, and called off the alliance.


Kenneth Ham, the creationist founder and promoter of the museum, was unhappy; he was "personally saddened."

"It's a pity," said Ham, "that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith. Some of their comments ... reveal great intolerance for anything have to do with Christianity."

I find that most interesting. Ham has always bragged that the museum, while creationist, was not about Christianity but about science. In fact, creationists around the world struggle on a daily basis to try to determine some kind of scientific basis for their creationist nonsense.

And, in fact, the opposition to the zoo/museum alliance as well as opposition to the museum in general, has nothing to do with Christianity. Those opposed are opposed because the Creation Museum is not simply bad science, but isn't science at all, and simply confuses simple people with it's moronic biblicism.


PZ Myers, something of a lightning rod for creationists and other whack jobs, has received a number of e-mails attacking his position. Fortunately, he has a great sense of humor, and has provided one written by a true wingnut for our review here.

His original post dealing with this issue is here.

Catholic poohbah pans Disney

In England, the Roman Catholic Abbot of Worth, Christopher Jamison, claims the Disney Corporation is garnering humongous sums of money from children and other unsuspecting adult dolts by "exploiting spirituality."

Not only so, but our consumerism is going to cost us our souls.

Better check the bottom of your shoes! Oh, sorry. Wrong kind of souls!


The whole idea of Disney, says Abbot Jamison, is to convince us that life isn't worth living unless we "live the full Disney experience."

I wonder if the Abbot fell off one of rides at Disney World and hit his head. Good grief! Disney and every other corporation has the same objective; to sell their products! Coca-Cola claims we need to drink Coke to have a worthwhile life. Ford tells us we won't have a worthwhile life if we don't drive a Ford car. Bill O'Reilly thinks we must watch his show to have a worthwhile life. And J.C. Penney, which sends at least one catalog a day to our house, is adamant in reminding us how important the Penney's corporation is to living a worthwhile life.

The good abbot sounds like a TV evangelist, all of which, with high drama and melodramatic music, threaten viewers with the scourge of their fantasy hell unless they turn to Jesus because, they cry, that is the only way to live a worthwhile life. Oh, yes, send money, too.

Evidently, Abbot Jamison has a new book soon to be released called Finding Happiness, in which he pushes the notion that living more simply is the key to worthwhile living. Simple living, and not buying Disney products will put us on the road to "happiness."


And there's no problem with that. Prelates and other pretenders to righteousness have been writing books for eons, each of them claiming to have uncovered the secret of a worthwhile life. A few of these books may even contain a kernel of truth.

But - here's the irony and the hypocrisy - for a Roman Catholic Abbot to castigate the Disney corporation for the exploitation of spirituality - of children mostly - is, to put it mildly, the difference between the pot and the kettle.

If any institution exploits children spiritually it is the Roman Catholic Church. From the moment of baptism, when a child becomes "saved" through the efficacy of that sacrament, through first communion and confirmation, exploitation is the name of the game. Children are taught that outside of the church (Roman Catholic) there is no salvation! They are taught Roman doctrine with a vengeance, and warned they must believe it all or go to hell!

But, as we have learned, in many cases they are taught much more than that! Let's put it this way: Any Catholic parent who allows his/her child to serve at the altar or be alone with a priest for any amount of time should be sentenced to a lifetime of hard labor in a nunnery, for that is to put one's child at risk.

How many thousands of priests have been adjudged pedophiles? How many bishops have covered up their crimes? How many thousands of victims are still out there crippled with guilt and shame, silently bearing their wounds?


So, Abbot Jamison, get off that horse and ride some other cause. Disney may use every legitimate device they can to entice young people to purchase their products, but at least they give something of value in return, unlike your church which has too often given them hell on earth.

Right belief depends on whose ox is being gored...

From fleasnobbery.blogspot.com

h/t to PZ Myers at Pharyngula

Jesus and Santa - the two legends meet

At first I thought this was a joke. But no.... the folks who put it together were serious. Santa rolls out of a chimney and there sits Jesus, robes and all. They chat and Santa gets "saved."

What a "merry" Christmas!

Nothing like bringing mythology to life!

h/t to Gods4suckers.net

The Gators, God and Tim Tebow

Well, the Gators won!

They are the SEC champions, beating Alabama!

I guess God does care about football! That Bible verse on Tebow's cheeks probably did the trick!

You Gator fans sure as hell better be in church tomorrow morning!!!


See original post here.

Here's my latest update, with word from on high! Click here.

Final update (I think) on Jan. 9, 2008 here.

No resignation from Mary Beth Buchanan

[AP Photo by Gene J. Puskar]

It is commonplace and considered good form and decent human behavior for U.S. attorneys to tender their resignations when a new president takes office. That clears the playing field and allows the new executive to fill those slots with new appointees.

Mary Beth Buchanan is the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh. Appointed by George W. Bush, she's hung her hat in that office since 2001.

Mary Beth Buchanan is not resigning. Filled with love for her country and because of her ardent desire to ensure the upholding of the laws of the United States, Ms. Buchanan said righteously, "It doesn't serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time."


From all accounts U.S. attorney Buchanan is a hard-core Republican loyalist, and erstwhile supporter of prezident Bush. She is a "political" U.S. attorney, who according to Faiz Shakir at Think Progress, "has been criticized for bringing politically-motivated investigations and charges against politicians in western Pennsylvania."

Not only so, but she's the person responsible for hiring the incompetent and theocratic Monica Goodling, and has "had a peripheral role in the U.S. attorney scandal" working with Attorney General Gonzales regarding the political firing of U.S. attorneys who refused to cooperate with the partisan orders of the Gonzales' Justice Department.

Additionally, she's considered the government's bulldog with regard to obscenity and pornography.


All of this is old news and has been reported in numerous places. The most significant and amazing piece of information to come from Buchanan's office, however, is that this "political Bushite," a woman who has fit like a glove within the Justice Department of Bush, Ashcroft, and Gonzales, now indicates that she would consider "further service to the United States."

Repugnicans continue to amaze me. Evidently, Ms. Buchanan also is devoid of an inner ethical core. She is a horrendously partisan political appointee who has acted in a horrendously partisan manner during her tenure as a U.S. attorney; she refuses to follow protocol and resign her office; and yet she wants to work with President-elect Obama!

Why? And how could she possibly think that President-elect Obama or anyone else on the Obama team could or would trust her?

Put her out to pasture. Please!

Maybe she can give legal advice to Alberto Gonzales when he comes to trial for abuse of power.

There's more here from Daily Kos. The entire Shakir article at Think Progress is here.

Turning to God in Christian England

[Westminster Cathedral from britainonview.com]

Nigel Farndale, writing at the Telegraph.co.uk, suggests that the recession in merrie olde England has nudged some folks in that almost Christian country to rethink their spiritual commitment this holiday season.

"Talk to bishops, priests and vicars and you get a sense that tectonic plates are shifting; that the national mood is changing; that we are turning our backs upon the hollow materialism of recent years and lifting our hearts to a higher, more spiritual plane."

Maybe.

As evidence of this "tectonic" shift, Nigel refers to a straw poll by his paper which indicated that church attendance was up last Sunday. And Canon Martin Warner of St. Paul's, along with other clergy, claims that he has seen an increase in the number of attendees at his services.

It could be, says Nigel, this is because churches are like sanctuaries. "When you look up at a barrelled ceiling and drowsily inhale the moist smell of mildew and incense, the noise of the traffic and the chatter in your head seems to subside."

A number of prelates, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, echo a refrain which indicates people are missing the spiritual aspect of life and are thus engaging the ministry of the church and its accouterments such as the singing of carols, sharing with families in need and contemplating the "true" meaning of Christmas.

Nigel puts it like this: "Somewhere along the way we seem to have forgotten what it is we really want. Long before the gaudily dressed man with the white beard hijacked the tradition of giving presents and turned it into an orgy of excess, it was meant to symbolise the bringing of gifts for the infant Jesus."

And like this: "There is perhaps an element of stock-taking going on; a belated recognition of how decadent and greedy we have been in Christmases past. Now that they are in sharp focus, the bonuses paid to investment bankers in the boom period look obscene. Perhaps they always were, but they seemed to distract and unreal to latch our minds on to. ...

"Not any more. Perhaps we are coming to see that greed should not be worshiped; that actually it is something to be ashamed of. A profit motive - making money out of your fellow man - cannot be the sole purpose of society. The Christian message, by contrast, is that society is about how we live with each other; about loving thy neighbour, honouring your mother and father, and doing unto others as you'd have them do to you."


In summary, Nigel would have us believe that this minor uptick in church attendance is a signal that his English brothers and sisters have forsaken or are in process of forsaking materialism for something more substantial to "satisfy the human spirit." Indeed, it might mean a "rejection of consumerism that is being foisted upon us" and "that people find themselves looking forward, for the first time in years, to a Christmas Day with their families."


It would be nice to think Nigel is right. But I'm too much of a cynic. If, indeed, there is a real, albeit minor, increase in church attendance, it stretches the imagination to conclude this indicates a renewed spirituality and a rejection of greed and consumerism.

More to the point, I think, assuming its "truthiness," is that an increase in church attendance relates, not so much to a rejection of materialism, but rather to the old saw about no atheists in foxholes. In other words, when the going gets tough, we turn to God. When all else fails, we turn to God.

But again, I'm not at all sure Nigel's suppositions holds water. The evidence of increased church attendance may be mostly imaginary.


Whatever, you can bet your bippy that when the recession ebbs, when the money flows, when the sun shines, when the future glows, the bishops and priests and vicars will find themselves staring once again at empty pews on Sunday mornings.


Read all of Mr. Farndale's article here.

Music and China's rising hegemony

[Photo by Mark Dadswell/Getty]

Spengler, writing for the Asia Times, suggests that musical study in China is indicative of China's rising hegemony in the world.

While the U.S. spend six times the amount of money on defense as does China, China "holds a six-to-one advantage over the United States" in another "strategic dimension" -- the study of piano. "Thirty-six million Chinese children study piano today, compared to only 6 million in the United States. The numbers understate the difference, for musical study in China is more demanding."

Musical study, then, metaphorically represents China's future.

"It must be a conspiracy," says Spengler. "Chinese parents are selling plasma-screen TVs to America, and saving their wages to buy their kids pianos - making American kids stupider and Chinese kids smarter. Watch out, Americans - a generation from now, your kid is going to fetch coffee for a Chinese boss. ... Americans really don't have a clue what is coming down the pike. The present shift in intellectual capital in favor of the East has no precedent in world history. ...

"The world's largest country is well along the way to forming an intellectual elite on a scale that the world has never seen, and against which nothing in today's world - surely not the inbred products of the Ivy League puppy mills - can compete. Few of its piano students will earn a living at the keyboard, to be sure, but many of the 36 million will become much better scientists, engineers, physicians, businessmen and military officers."


Spengler bases his predictions on the fact that the study of music, in particular classical music, "produces better minds, and promotes success in other fields." He cites academic studies which "show that music lessons raise the IQs of six-year-olds."

While "Any activity that requires discipline and deferred gratification benefits children ... classical music does more than sports or crafts. Playing tennis at a high level requires great concentration, but nothing like the concentration required to perform the major repertoire of classical music."

So watch out. There's more here than meets the eye. "China has embraced the least Chinese, and the most explicitly Western, of all art forms." Couple that with the fact that "[t]he Chinese, in some ways the most arrogant of peoples, can elicit a deadly kind of humility in matters of learning. Their eclecticism befits an empire that is determined to succeed, as opposed to a mere nation that needs to console itself by sticking to its supposed cultural roots. Great empires transcend national culture and naturalize the culture they require."

China is on the rise. And, says Spengler, Americans don't get the picture. "That is what makes America's music gap with China so difficult to remedy. Except in a vague way, one cannot explain the uniqueness of Western classical music to non-musicians, and America is governed not by musicians, but by sports fans."

Further complicating the matter is the fact that "American musical education remains the best in the world" and "the best Asian musicians come to America to study." And America is where they hone their skills, soon out-performing their American counterparts. "According to the head of one conservatory, Americans simply don't have the discipline to practice eight hours a day."


It all comes down to this. American policy-makers have tended to think of the Chinese, not as originators, but as imitators. "China has had little incentive to innovate; an emerging economy does not have to re-invent the wheel, or the Volkswagen, for that matter."

But, and here's the crunch: China has a long history of innovation. "China invented the clock, the magnetic compass, the printing press, geared machines, gunpowder, and the other technologies that began the industrial revolution, long before the West. When it comes time to develop the next generation of anti-missile radar, or electric car batteries, Chinese originality may assert itself once again. Chinese who have mastered the most elevated as well as the most characteristically Western forms of high culture [e.g. classical music] will also think with originality."

And didn't the Beijing Olympics give us a hint? And isn't China entering the space age with fine-fettled force? And in the last twenty years which country went from manufacturing crap to manufacturing excellence?


Don't say we weren't warned.


Spengler has much more to say and you can read it all here.

Our economic problems means God is angry says Internet "evangelist"

[Photo of the phony Bill Keller]

All of our economic troubles are God's punishment on America for its many sins. That's according to Bill Keller, founder of an Internet site called Liveprayer.com, a man some say is the "world's leading internet evangelist."

What's to be done? Keller wants President Bush to declare December 18th a National Day of Prayer and Fasting for the Economy. Keller has set up a petition which his followers can sign which will be sent to Mr. Bush.


Keller is convinced that God is using the economy to judge the nation for its sins. Bailouts won't work, says Keller, because the problem is a "spiritual" one and not an economic one. "The answer to our economic downfall is not an infusion of trillions of dollars, but the humble prayers of forgiveness and repentance for our sin and rebellion against God."

I'll be you didn't know that!

It's interesting, however, that Keller doesn't say much about the other countries around the world that are suffering their own economic crisis. Keller also doesn't explain why God would want to punish everyone in the United States in one broad judgmental swoop. Are there no "righteous" people in Sodom and Gomorrah, er, I mean our 50 states?

We must, says Keller, "turn back to God and biblical truths. This nation was once greatly blessed by God but today we legally slaughter over four thousand innocent babies each day, we have made a mockery of God's holy institution of marriage, we worship every idol and false god man has ever created, and we live in total rebellion to God and his truth. ... We spit in the face of God every day, and now we're simply reaping what we've sown."

And this is just the beginning, warns Keller.


Keller obviously gets special and personal messages from his god that somehow other religious types are not privy to. Prominent TV evangelists like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell were certain that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment for our nation's moral failings, but they failed to warn us of the impending economic crisis. They must have missed god's call on that one.

Keller did, however, hear from god regarding the Mormons. He has no good word to say about Mormons, and Mitt Romney. In fact, back during the Repugnican primaries, Keller warned his faithful that to vote for Romney was to vote for Satan! Mormonism, says Keller, is "a work of Satan and those who follow [its] false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell."


It's possible you've never heard of Bill Keller. If so, count yourself lucky. He's just another religious huckster getting rich off the ignorance and naivete of those stupid enough to listen to him or believe what they read on his Website.

He's got several money-making machines under the umbrella of Bill Keller Ministries, including the BK Media division and the Liveprayer.com internet operation.

But, it wasn't all candy and roses. Back in 1989, when Bill was "running from God," he was convicted of insider trading of the stock market. He "lost everything, and spend the next 2 1/2 years in a federal prison.

That's when he found Jesus again. And he went to school. His biblical "expertise" is explained in part by the fact that he got an undergraduate degree in "biblical studies" from that monument to superstition and ignorance, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

But every non-aligned preacher has to be credentialed and when Bill got out of prison in 1992, he was "discipled by two precious charismatic couples" (unnamed), and then received his "ministry credentials through an independent group of ministers, Spiritual Life Concepts in Largo, Florida.

In other words, he has no real biblical training whatsoever: Which is why he can come up with his outlandish and stupid beliefs.

But hey, this is a free country and religious scams make lots of money for lots of folks who don't want to get a real job.


I still wonder, though, why rotters like George W. Bush and his cronies, who are, in fact, the ones responsible for our financial meltdown, get a free pass from these phony TV and Internet preachers?

God spoke to me this morning while I was finishing my second hard-boiled egg and told me that Keller's a kook and Bush should be impeached. She also said that she had never heard of Keller until just the other day, and that she would never blame everyone for anything and she's truly pissed off and will have a special place in the afterlife reserved for the likes of Keller and his evangelist cohorts, as well as for Bush, Cheney and other nasties.

Bush, the not quite ready "war" president and the One Percent Doctrine

George W. Bush, the worst president in American history, has been whining in various interviews that he wasn't ready to be a war president and that he would not have invaded Iraq if he had had better intelligence.

That, of course, is unmitigated bullshit!

George W. Bush loved playing the role of a war president. It wasn't that he wasn't ready, hell, he auditioned for the role and staged the whole thing. Just put him in a flight suit and he'd strut like a bantam rooster for all the world to see, a warrior in pretense, if not in fact.


And the problem he had was not bad intelligence. The intelligence was good. He just didn't want to hear it and didn't listen to it.

The problem was not even bad evidence. The problem was there was NO evidence that Saddam had done the things that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons wished he had done in order to justify an invasion of Iraq.


None of this mattered ultimately, however, because of the Cheney doctrine which by the spring of 2003 had become the default of the Bush administration. The Cheney doctrine and what it meant for American foreign policy has been dealt with in clear and concise detail in Ron Suskind's book, The One Percent Doctrine [Simon & Schuster, New York, 2006].

To put it succinctly: The One Percent Doctrine as developed by Dick Cheney meant that if there was a one percent chance that a country might attack or harm the United States, the United States would be justified in taking preemptive action against that country.

In other words, evidence no long mattered. That's why the whole debate relative to Saddam's WMDs was a smoke screen. Nobody in the Bush administration cared whether Saddam had WMDs. They could make their case without that on the basis of the One Percent Doctrine. There was at least a one percent chance that Saddam was a threat to the United States. Therefore, blow the son-of-a-bitch up!


Here's a section of Suskind's book:

"Part of the default of this presidency is that Cheney is the global thinker of the pair. Usually, presidents fill this role .... Bush has sweeping ideas, some born of strong personal or religious beliefs, like bringing freedom to the world, or spreading democracy, or ending terror. Those are hopes--grand ones, common to the urges of many people--but not policies, or hard assessments of a nation and its place in the world.

"That part is Cheney's job. ...

"The Iraq war was launched, in large measure, from the left brain of the Vice President. The prospect of Saddam having destructive weapons and giving them to a terrorist is, in fact, 'a low-probability, high-impact event' that, despite the paucity of hard evidence of weaponry or al Qaeda links, would certainly meet a one percent probability threshold. So, the doctrine states, it must be treated 'as a certainty' in 'our reaction.' The minions fussing over evidence, or the lack thereof, in the lead-up to the war were missing the point. ...

"'Making a case for war' fell under public relations, under marketing, not R&D ..." [p. 213]


George wanted desperately, needed even, to be a war president, and to be a "better" war president than his daddy had been. Iraq offered the perfect outlet to satisfy this want, this need. With the right PR and the Cheney doctrine, there would be no stopping him. He'd take Iraq, bring Saddam down, and turn that Middle Eastern pile of sand into a democracy just like the good ol' US of A.

More importantly, perhaps, is that he would secure the Iraqi oil fields for his buddies in the bidness. He could also ease the fears of the Saudis that Iraqi oil would end up in the "wrong" hands.

He would be a hero!


Everything went wrong, of course, almost from the beginning and it's gone downhill from there. That's the trouble with a pretend war president who is essentially involved in playing a role, the script of which he forgot to read, in a war that he has staged which proceeds to tumble out into the real world to become a nightmare of death and destruction with global repercussions.

But he can't avoid the judgment of history or perhaps a world court by pretending he wasn't ready or that he had been given bad intelligence.

For the first time in his life, George W. Bush may actually have to answer for his actions. Neither his daddy nor his rich Saudi friends will be able to bail him out this time. He will stand before the bar of judgment alone.

Maybe he can appear costumed in a flight suit.

Let's declare war on Christmas

[Image by Dorkafok at InDCJournal]

Christmas has not been about the celebration of Jesus' birth for a long time. Sure, some people go to church on this holiday and others may even read the two birth stories in Matthew and Luke, but for the most part it is celebrated as a secular holiday, even by Christians.

And that isn't a bad thing, for it coincides with the Winter Solstice and there are other religious holidays that come up on the calendar about the same time such as Hanukkah and Kwanza. So Christmas becomes part of the holiday season.

The trouble isn't with any of these religious celebrations or any pagan celebrations; it has to do with how we celebrate Christmas.


If you've been shopping at your favorite mall or your favorite store(s) in the past few days, you know the crowds have already grown ferocious and that it will only get worse between now and the middle of January: the shopping spree doesn't end on December 26, it just morphs into the "After-Xmas" sales and then the "New Year's" sales.

It is a madhouse out there, witness the trampling of a man to death in a Wal-Mart in New York State. In some cases, it's an armed madhouse - to borrow a phrase from Greg Palast - witness the shooting of two people in a Toys R Us in Palm Desert, California.


Christmas for most people is primarily about buying and consuming. For not a few it means going into debt to purchase junk gifts for children and other family members that often are neither needed nor wanted.

For many folks, Christmas also means decorating one's house with a tree (fake or real) covered with ornaments, littering the lawn with absurd plastic figures, cheap and gaudy creches and/or scrawny wire figurines and then draping the whole place with thousands of lights which send the electric bill into orbit.

We musn't forget all the hokey parades and the soupy, sentimental, crappy Christmas movies on TV. Between now and December 25, we'll have so many Christmas "specials" that the word "special" could better be defined as commonplace.

In the malls, all sorts of faux festivities take place in order to relieve you of your hard-earned cash (too often via credit card). It's difficult to get very far without hearing the screeching, sometimes in fear, of small children plopped on the lap of a faux Santa Claus with boozy breath, surrounded by faux snow and faux trees.

All of this culminates either Xmas eve or Xmas morning when the kids and parents, or whoever the kids are living with at the moment, gather around the tree to tear open their piles upon piles of presents faster than Mom can write down who they're from and then ask, amid the crush of crumpled paper and strewn ribbon, "Is that all?" "When do we eat?"

And a few minutes later, "I'm bored. There's nothing to do!"


It's too much. It's enough to drive a sane person insane and none of it has a damn thing to do with anything other than helping the purveyors of consumption make their sales projections.

We need to declare war on Christmas!

No mas! Get rid of it! Toss the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Excise it completely from our lives! It has become a meaningless and useless collection of expensive rituals that have no connection with anything. Churches could still hold services for people who feel the need to celebrate the 2000-year old birth of a Palestinian Jew, but there should be nothing of Christmas outside of those religious institutions.

I don't think Jesus would mind at all.

Here's why.

She's probably in her 50's. A small, black woman who has worked for the same department store for 27 years. She's very kind, gentle, soft-spoken and helpful to her customers. She likes her job. Usually.

But not at Christmas.

Today, already weary, she said, "You know, I've never been able to enjoy Christmas."

"What? Why not?" I asked.

"Because I worry so much about the day after. The store becomes a crazy place with people rushing around, grabbing the after-Christmas sales. And then all the returns! It's very hard!"


Let the war on Christmas begin!

Saudi female art show

It could be a breakthrough of sorts, this all-female art show in Saudi Arabia.

Maybe.


Carmen Bin Ladin would no doubt applaud it while at the same time express concern that one all-female art show does not indicate fundamental changes have been made in a Saudi culture dominated by males that treats females as inferior human beings.

Carmen Bin Ladin, an independent European woman of Swiss/Persian descent, living in Switzerland, married Yeslam, a younger brother of Osama Bin Laden, in 1974. She was very much in love. For nine years she lived among the bin Laden clan in Saudi Arabia. During that time she gave birth to three daughters.

Carmen tells the story in her book, Inside the Kingdom, (Warner Books, New York, 2004). It is a fascinating glimpse of life behind the scenes, of how the rich and powerful live in the ultra-conservative desert kingdom ruled by the Saud family but beholden to the Wahhabi mullahs.

Upon her marriage, Carmen entered "a complex clan and a culture she neither knew nor understood. In Saudi Arabia, she was forbidden to leave her home without the head-to-toe black abaya thaqt completely covered her. Her face could never be seen by a man outside the family. And according to Saudi law, her husband could divorce her at will, without any kind of court procedure, and take her children away from her forever."

While the bin Laden clan shared and enjoyed great wealth, the bin Laden wives' lives were "so restricted that they could not go outside their homes--not even to cross the street--without a chaperone."

Eventually, Carmen left Yeslam and moved back to Switzerland with her daughters. After a long and difficult struggle, she divorced Yeslam in 2006.


The all-female art show was held at the French Embassy in Riyadh. Seven Saudi women artists were involved, offering their paintings and sculptures to public view. Amazingly, one abstract painting of a woman showed clearly one breast. This could not have been done in another venue, as nudity is a no-no in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi religious (morality) police are not allowed in foreign embassies.

The Saudi interest in art is something new and a few women have been allowed to participate. An article in philly.com notes that "The first nongovernmental arts society was established a year ago, with four women on its 10-member board."

The battle for female equality in Saudi Arabia is far from won, however. In some ways it hasn't even begun. But because the prevailing view in many Muslim countries holds "that the depiction of human form violates Islamic law and that sculptures look like idols," this art show may signify a willingness to modify some of the more restrictive laws.

But maybe not. Saudi Arabia in many ways exhibits a national schizophrenia that can lead to unexpected and occasional violent eruptions, often against those who violate religious law or somehow "insult" the kingdom. While the House of Saud ensures that the mullahs are well paid, the mullahs, in turn, look the other way and fail to see the profligate lives of the wealthy Saudis.

That quiet agreement has not yet been extended to allow personal freedom for women. The sexes remain strictly segregated in Saudi Arabia.

But, again, this all-female art show may be a sign of new possibilities. Donna Abu-Nasr, writing at philly.com, describes the work of Eman Jibreen, which expresses "the dichotomy between a Saudi woman's public appearance and her inner self. A series of tall boxes were painted on the exterior with images of Saudi women swathed in the mandatory black cloak. Inside each box were pictures of Albert Einstein, a child, a kitchen - an expression of each woman's individuality that is masked by the cloaks.

"A nearby caption read:

"'We may look the same to you

'A scarf and a featureless black blob

'But it is just a cover over our heads. Our faces maybe.

'But it has never been a cover for our brains.'"


Carmen bin Ladin would approve. A step in the right direction. But one hell of a long way to go!

The vision of a nation

I see the vision of a nation, the hope of a people, a way out of the darkness. I see change, not for the sake of change, but for a new beginning, a clearing of the air, and for the good of all not just for a few; change in which we all want to believe.

Photo from Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish here.

Who's heard of Africom?

There are so many things about what our government is doing around the world, especially militarily, that most of us are simply not privy to because we just don't care enough to find out or our news agencies are more concerned about Jennifer Aniston's wanting a baby than reporting news essential to our understanding of the world in which we live.


Maybe I'm just out of the loop. Have you ever heard of Africom?

Assuming a negative answer, I'm gonna tell you.

Africom is a new U.S. military command for Africa, established by President George W. Bush in February 2007: it is the Africa Command.


Daniel Volman, writing for AllAfrica.com says that "Throughout the Cold War and for more than a decade afterwards, the U.S. did not have a military command for Africa; instead, U.S. military activities on the continent were conducted by three separate commands: the European Command, which had responsibility for most of the continent; the Central Command, which oversaw Egypt and the Horn of Africa region along with the Middle East and Central Asia; and the Pacific Command, which administered military ties with Madagascar and other islands in the Indian Ocean."

So, why do we need an Africa Command now? Because the Bushites decided that someone had to keep a closer tab on Africa's oil! In fact, "the Bush administration declared that access to Africa's oil supplies would henceforth be defined as a 'strategic national interest' of the United States..."


The question is whether Barack Obama will continue to walk the path laid out by Bush and friends as regards Africa. Indications are that he will, with important reservations. In his response to a questionnaire by the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, Obama said that Africom "should serve to coordinate and synchronize our military activities with our other strategic objectives in Africa."

Part of his reasoning was that "there will be situations that require the United States to work with its partners in Africa to fight terrorism with lethal force." And it will be helpful to have "a unified command operation in Africa" to facilitate such action.

Notice, that Obama spoke of "partners in Africa." In other words, unilateral action is unlikely but nevertheless many are fearful "that the Obama administration will continue to expand the entire spectrum of U.S. military operations in Africa, including increasing U.S. military involvement in the internal affairs of African countries ... and the direct use of U.S. comabat troops to inteervene in African conflicts."


Some folks, however, are re-thinking Africom, including members of Congress. In 2006, the Resist Africom Campaign was formed to educate the American people (boy, they missed me!) about Africom "and to mobilize public and congressional opposition to the creation of the new command."

The Resist Africom Campaign wants Obama to "pursue a policy ... based on a genuine partnership with the people of Africa and on a mulitlateral approach which includes other countries which have an interest in Africa, including China and India -- which promotes sustainable economic development, democracy and human rights, and a new global energy order based on the use of clean, safe, and renewable resources."


Sounds good to me. But, then there's that oil bizness. And we still ain't close to getting over our addiction to black gold.


Read Volman's entire article here.

Merry effing Xmas, Israel!

It's nice to see people get into the Christmas "spirit" and act on the angel's message that the birth of Jesus was to bring peace on earth and goodwill toward all.

There are those, though, who seem to have heard different angels and a different message. Christmas, they believe, is the ripe time for attacking those with whom they disagree.


Some of these not-so-wonderful folks held an event titled "Bethlehem Now: Nine Alternative Lessons and Carols" at St. James, Picadilly, an Anglican Church. That doesn't sound nasty, but here's a clue as to what it was all about: the event was organized by Open Bethlehem, which is a Palestinian group and Jews for Boycotting Israel.

So, altogether they sang the carol, "Once in Royal David's City". Only it wasn't the same. They changed they lyrics to:

Once in Royal David's City
Stood a big apartheid wall
People entering and leaving
Had to pass a checkpoint hall
Bethlehem was strangulated
And her children segregated.


And then this joyful tune - "The Twelve Days of Christmas." You may find the words unfamiliar, however:

Twelve assassinations
Eleven homes demolished
Ten wells obstructed
Nine sniper towers
Eight gunships firing
Seven checkpoints blocking
Six tanks a-rolling
Five settlement rings
Four falling bombs
Three trench guns
Two trampled doves
And an uprooted olive tree.


Enough people complained about the excoriation of Israel and this trampling of the tradition of Christmas that the Rev. Charles Hedley, rector of St. James Piccadilly, said he would "think twice" before allowing such a thing to happen again.

Isn't that nice?

It is reported that the office of Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, criticized the service.

Sometimes merry effing Xmas ain't a lot of fun!


Thanks to the Telegraph.co.uk, from which this info was shamelessly borrowed.