My Recommended Charities For Haiti, And-A Joke

I don't know how many people watched the Telethon for Haiti that permeated broadcast television Friday night, I do know I didn't. Even though I won't make any judgments as to the sincerity of any individual performer or the many actors who manned the phones to take pledge calls, I will have to admit that, in general, I have to consider much of this just so much self-promotion, and in some cases nothing more than an excuse to promote leftist politics. Case in point-the preening little narcissist John Edwards, fresh off current revelations that yes he did father a "love child" with Rielle Hunter behind the back of his cancer stricken wife (who, admittedly, is a world class bitch). When Edwards went to Haiti to "help", it was obviously a way to repair his beyond damaged reputation. The fact that he went there accompanied by Marxist actor and Chavez/Castro supporter Sean Penn speaks volumes. As an aside I should point out that it has not been so long ago that Edwards tried to package himself as a centrist Democrat. If that in itself doesn't make you wary of all such self-styled moderates within the Democratic Party, nothing will.

Mainly, however, I fear that the telethon will do more harm than good, mainly because of the expense involved in putting the thing on, which can not help but drain many of the resources from the many good and well-meaning people who called in to make their pledges, the vast majority of whom would more than likely feel no need to hear Bruce Springsteen butcher We Shall Overcome in order to do so. Nor would the prospect of speaking on the phone to Jack Nicholson or Julia Roberts induce most to give more. For those who were so influenced, I hate to break it to you, but they probably forgot your name the minute you got off the phone with them, unless you said something really, REALLY inappropriate.

Even in the best of circumstances, even if this did inspire more people to give than would ordinarily have given, and even if it encouraged many to give twice as much, the fact remains, the production expenses will eat up a great deal of it. And then there's the important question-who gets the money.

Two of the projected recipients raise some red flags. Yele, which is the charity of Haitian musician Wyclef Jean has been accused of financial improprieties, yet was a recipient, even though Jean has been accused of using a large portion of the funds of his Haitian charity, Yele, for his own personal use. When I first heard of this, I considered the possibility that this might be an unfair attempt by other charities to harm a competitor, because let's face it, Big Charity is a business in it's own right, just one that isn't legally allowed to make a profit. That's the only difference. The bigger a charity is, the more in the way of wages, salaries, bonuses, and overhead it has to pay out. I was of the mind then that perhaps Wyclef Jean's charity was unfairly targeted and maligned by supporters of other charities, many of whom are run by people who are every bit the shark as your most ruthless corporate CEO.

Even Rush Limbaugh defended Wyclif Jean, probably for this very reason, but as it turns out, where there's smoke, often there really is fire. Wyclef Jean hung his staff out to dry, hired a new set of accountants, and appeared as a featured performer at the same Telethon of which his charity remains a major beneficiary.

Another odious recipient is The Red Cross, the penultimate example of a Byzantine, bureaucratic charity that eats up a large percentage of it's donations in overhead, salaries, and bonuses. They were also a subject of controversy in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks for refusing to utilize money received ostensibly to benefit 9/11 survivors families, instead transferring funds for projected future needs against the expressed wishes of the majority of contributors to 9/11 relief.

A good rule of thumb is, the intended recipients of charity relief should receive at the very least one third of the money a private charity takes in ostensibly for their benefit. I would prefer to see that number go to well over half the charities intake. The point to all this is, before you give to any charity, you should attempt to research exactly how effective they are. Charities such as the aforementioned Yele should be given a wide berth, and the Red Cross deserves a similar degree of skepticism. There are some charities I could recommend for Haitian relief, but even so I still suggest you look into them yourselves before you send them anything. All I can do is point out the directions, you still have to watch your step along the way.

As for which charities, I'll get into that soon, but first-a joke!

French President Sarkozy, having studied up on the sad, tragic history of France's past with Haiti, decided France should make a contribution to the relief efforts. But he was in a bind, as the state of the French economy was far from ideal. Still, human decency and compassion compelled him to make a pledge on behalf of the great people of France.

When his wife learned what he had done, she almost literally hit the roof and, in a rage, ordered her chauffeur to rush her to the airport in an attempt to put a stop to what she considered a foolishly insane promise.

She arrived just in time to see Sarkozy readying to board his private jet, tugging a luggage rack on wheels with four different suitcases, one atop the other. She shouted at him to stop. Turning, he saw her approaching hurriedly. Handing his luggage to an attendant, he ordered him to take it up the ramp.

"What did you promise those people?" she demanded. "Money? Medicine? Clothing? What?"

"None of that, my dear," he reassured her in a calm but firm voice. "I simply pledged to the Haitian President that I would donate, on behalf of France, a years supply of personal grooming supplies. You know-soap, shampoo, tampons, deodorant, that kind of thing."

"Is that a year's supply worth for Haiti, or for France?" she demanded, obviously seething.

"France," he replied sheepishly.

"You idiot!" she screamed. "What are the people of France to do for the next year?"

"Oh, for God's sake, Carla, the companies will just increase production, and the donation will be replaced probably before they are ever missed. You must have faith in my decisions. After all, I am your husband, and need I remind you, the President of France. I must set an example."

This untypical determination on the part of her husband actually shamed Carla, and the First Lady of France lowered her head, suddenly humbled in the face of her husband's magnanimous gesture and strong determination.

"I apologize deeply my husband," she said apologetically. "I don't know what came over me. I only want what is best for you, and for our country. I love you."

"As I do you, my dear," Sarkozy replied. "Now go back to the Presidential palace and wait. I shall return in a few days, I promise."

With that, Carla left, and Sarkozy boarded the plane, where he was greeted by the pilot.

"That was very brave of you, Mr. President," the pilot said admiringly.

"Yes, well, let's just please be on our way before she changes her mind." Sarkozy said as he then pointed in the direction of the four piece luggage set that now rested by his seat. "Besides, I want to give this to the Haitians as soon as possible."

(Okay you can stop laughing now, joke over)

As for what charities I can recommend, well not many, but there are some.

The first one that comes to mind is The Salvation Army, which I learned from The Fat Guy, has actually established a significant presence in Haiti over the course of a good many years. As such, they presumably already have the means to distribute any donations they receive in an effective manner.

Samaritan's Purse is one I had never heard of before. It comes recommended by Lemuel Calhoun of the blog Hillbilly White Trash who assures us that they put every dime they give to good use. Of course, there are expenses involved with any charitable organization.

Jason of The Wild Hunt Blog recommends that you make use of the website Charity Navigator, which functions as a kind of Better Business Bureau of the Charity world. Jason especially recommends the group Doctors Without Borders.

I have to admit, I find their recommendation of The Red Cross dubious, but I will grant them this one error, because in fact, I do concede The Red Cross does good work. I just feel they, and a good many others, could do a lot better.

Charity Navigator also gives good advice on what to avoid. Telemarketers and on-line requests for aid should be ignored, and in some cases it might be appropriate to report them to the proper authorities. They also strongly urge that you do not give money directly to the Haitian government nor to any officials of that corrupt entity.

Finally, I feel that I should point out that there are many good local and regional charities throughout the United States that by reason of their limited range fly under the radar and remain generally unknown. However, that is not a reflection of the actual work they do, much of which can be considerable.

Agape Flights,for example, is an organization which flies in supplies of donations received through the auspices of several different churches in the Kentucky area as listed on WAVE Channel 3. They are geared mainly towards supplying food, medicine and other supplies to Haitian earthquake victims and survivors.

There is an emphasis in some local drives in Kentucky on peanut butter, which is a high source of needed protein. Presumably, there is not a significant level of the peanut allergy phenomenon which is so prevalent in the States, and which may have an environmental origin of some sort.

I am sure there are many other worthwhile charities you can find on your own in your local areas. It is good to give, but if you feel moved to do so, why not give by way of those who can utilize your donations to the greatest effect, and with the utmost efficiency? It's the right thing to do when you really want to make a difference.

That Hugo-He Has All The Answers

First, Pat Robertson blamed it on God's anger over a pact with the devil. Then, Danny Glover blamed it on Gaea's anger over the collapse of the Copenhagen Summit. But Hugo Chavez ain't having any of that superstitious nonsense. He has determined the true culprit responsible for the Haitian earthquake, and all the resultant devastation is-wait for it-

The United States, who he claims did all this by testing a new, super secret earthquake machine. Why did they do this? They are planning to use it against Iran, naturally.

After all, would the Russian North Fleet tell him something like that if it wasn't true?

Air America Crashes, Burns

Air America has officially ceased live broadcasting and announced it is filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. HuffPo readers react. Of course, they whine, complain, and get all defensive while they offer one cheap excuse after another for the program's failures. Some of them are so far removed from reality they crow about the success of Rachel Maddow and Al Franken, among others.

I would point out that Rachel Maddow has been on MSNBC for years, and I sure wouldn't be too quick to credit Al Franken's Minnesota Senate victory to Air America. Crooked lawyers, corrupt Democratic Party state officials, the SEIU and ACORN get the lion's share of the credit for that travesty, all aided and abetted by a strong third party Senate candidacy. If the truth were known, more people were negatively than positively influenced by Franken's Air America association.

Air America has been for years a giant zeppelin spewing hot air and steadily approaching ground level. The Hindenburg explosion could not have been more obvious. The most absurd excuse I've yet heard for Air America's problems-and bear in mind I heard this one years ago-is the notion that liberal listeners just work too hard to be able to find the time to patronize a radio program. More than just an implication, the stated charge here is that Rush Limbaugh listeners are for the most part uneducated, illiterate, unemployed trailer trash hicks who don't have anything more constructive to do with their time than listen to Rush Limbaugh and call in to spew their "right wing hate", what times they aren't guzzling booze and fucking their sisters in the bed of their pick-up trucks.

My question to that risible proposition would be, do liberals work twenty-four fucking hours a day? Are radio station programmers too inept to pick an appropriate time slot? Or is this yet another part of one of those right-wing corporate conspiracies we're always hearing so much about?

Mixed Feelings

The Supreme Court has just reversed a long-standing law, going back in fact more than a century, to 1907, which barred corporations from contributing money to political campaigns. They still can't give money directly to politicians, but they can purchase advertisement. The Court, in fact, by a 5-4 margin, has ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they please to this end, and that they have as much right as individuals to do so. Presumably, this will in effect also end the ban on labor unions contributing to campaigns. That will be up to the rank-and-file to decide, presumably, if they ever decide to take that up. More than likely, they will just continue doing what they have always done-vote for who they damn well please, as they damn well should.

All of these extravagantly expensive political campaigns you've been seeing over the course of the last few election cycles? Well, they just got a whole lot more expensive.

Teddy Roosevelt pushed and lobbied for the old law way back when, so one can assume he would not be too happy with this latest development, but you know what? Who cares? Back then, corporations were engaged in some pretty bad behaviors, things that make today's corporate sharks look like pantywaists. Today's ruling is a far cry from paving the way for a return to the days of the trusts and monopolies that Roosevelt thought, with some merit, were tantamount to turning the American economy into the personal fiefdom of a select group of corporate titans and their major shareholders. This actually puts things on a more even keel. Corporations now will have the flexibility and the freedom to make the point that they aren't necessarily the bad guys in all cases, that overly-intrusive government bureaucracy, taxes and regulations, are at least as much responsible for rising prices and high unemployment as corporate greed and corruption.

Take what they say with a healthy, skeptical grain of salt, sure, but don't begrudge them their rights to make their case just like nearly anyone or anything else does.

Before Last Tuesday's Massachusetts Senate Election

Can you imagine what this fool is thinking now?

Massachusetts Senate Coakley Ad Satire-My IowaHawk Submission

UPDATE-BROWN WINS! COAKLEY CONCEDES!

UPDATE-Scott Brown is no RINO, insists John R. Guardiano on the American Spectator blog.

UPDATE- Pajammas Media has Scott Brown up 9.6 percent among likely voters, which is identical to his lead over Coakley in a poll conducted by the Merriman River Group.

(Any further updates at bottom of post).

Things are really heating up in the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by the late Edward Kennedy. In fact, Martha Coakley, the former state AG once considered the sure winner of the election, seems to be getting desperate in the face of polls which variously show Republican State Senator Scott Brown to either be within two points, or solidly in the lead in polling, according even to Coakley's own internal polling.

So over the top have been her ads, including one that insists Brown wants to turn away all rape victims from the hospitals, that Brown himself has threatened to file a lawsuit against Coakley's campaign if the charge is not retracted by Tuesday morning.

In the meantime, Iowahawk has come up with a brilliant concept. He has asked readers to submit proposed satires of Coakley ads. This is also an unusual move, in that Iowahawk ordinarily does not post comments to his blog.

Naturally, I came up with my own submission, which is as follows-

THE RETARDED POLICIES OF SCOTT BROWN (COAKLEY AD)

In the background a violin with tones representing despair combined with a sense of mounting evil sets the stage as a woman arrives home to her affluent Boston suburban home from a hard days work, unsuspecting of the horrible news that awaits. She opens her front door and enters to see her young teenage daughter, about fourteen years old, crying and visibly shaken. Worried, she approaches anxiously.

Mom: What happened at the doctor’s, Mary?

Mary: Oh mom, the doc told me that my baby was a Moderate Retarded fetus. It’s awful.

Mom: It’s all right sweetheart. These things happen. You can get an abortion, and maybe in a year or two you’ll be able to have a normal baby.

Mary: You don’t understand Mom. Senator Scott Brown won’t allow the doctor to give me an abortion. According to him, my retarded baby has as much of a right to life as any real person does. Oh mom, how could this happen? Why did you vote for such an uncaring, evil, backwards thinking person like Scott Brown? How could the people of Massachusetts elect him to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat?

Pan to mother expressing an anxious, defeated look of sadness, as the image fades.

V/O-Could such a thing really happen? Unfortunately, yes it could and will if Scott Brown wins. Scott Brown claims he cares about the citizens of Massachusetts. Yet, he has demonstrated time after time that Scott Brown cares for nothing but the special interests of Retarded Moderates.

And he wants to make sure there are more and more Retarded Moderates, who will support his insane, anti-progressive agenda, until eventually they have taken over-

OUR SCHOOLS (Fade to image of a large group of retarded kids taking over tables in a school cafeteria. One of them eats buggers from his nose during lunch in full sight while they all gaze lustfully at normal teenage girls and boys, breathing deeply and making other inappropriate comments and noises, some of them apparently masturbating under the table.)

OUR WORKPLACES (Cut to a scene of a large group of retarded adults taking over a warehouse, one of them knocking over large stacked boxes with a fork lift while the rest of them run amok, laughing maniacally as the normal workers cower in the corners, while smoke gathers from an area off camera and a fire alarm blares).

OUR PLACES OF BUSINESS (To a scene at a supermarket, where a riot of retarded people ensues due to a product being sold out, a leader of the riot glaring menacingly at a store clerk, leading a chant of “We want Pringles now! We want Pringles now!”).

OUR NEIGHBORHOODS (A scene of a normal Massachusetts family looking worriedly out their window as a loud, raucous group of retarded families who have moved into the neighborhood make an ungodly racket in the middle of the night, one man knocking on the door demanding a soda while his young retarded son defecates in the yard. The young son of the normal couple asks worriedly, “Mom, dad, isn’t there anything we can do?”)

EVEN OUR PLACES OF WORSHIP (Pan to a scene of a retarded woman demanding a large glass of wine as she steps up to partake of the Eucharist, the Priest helplessly acceding to the request in order to keep the peace).

AND ONCE THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM, AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE ULTIMATE TRAGEDY THAT COULD RESULT

(Fade to scene at a polling place where a large group of retarded people stand waving posters proclaiming “Trig’s Mother Rocks-Vote Palin in 2012”.

Back to present scene of everyday voters of Massachusetts, going to and fro in their daily routines, unsuspecting of the impending tragedy as the music continues ominously in the background.

V/O-This could well be the future of Massachusetts, if Scott Brown succeeds in imposing his pro-Retarded Moderate agenda-an agenda that is anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-family, anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-education, anti-health care, and anti-Massachusetts. An agenda that could well end with a law mandating television shows and movies starring Retarded heroes, the promotion of books and music by Retarded artists, and even demands that normal people accept the Retarded as their equals in every way. How would you feel if the law forced your son or daughter to date a Retarded Moderate?

And once Retarded Moderates have paved the way-can Retarded Conservatives be far behind?

Scott Brown-In the pockets of the Retarded Moderates lobby. Bad for Massachusetts.

Paid for by the Committee of Normal Voters To Elect Martha Coakley

(the end)

If you are interested, IowaHawk is going to take what he considers the best ads and possibly make actual ad satires based on them. He hasn't announced a set date for that, but I would suggest you make any submissions you might wish to make as quickly as possible.

Deal Or No Deal

I accepted some time ago that, in the mind of many (probably most) conservative Christians, if you do not worship their God, you are by definition a "devil worshiper". You might not necessarily be aware of that fact, but to them it is nonetheless a fact. It should come as no surprise then that Pat Robertson considers the ancestors of the present day inhabitants of Haiti to have made a pact with the devil on that day they rebelled from the French.

For those who might be interested, here is the actual "prayer" that amounted to what one might term the "Haitian Declaration of Independence"-

The god who created the earth; who created the sun that gives us light. The god who holds up the ocean; who makes the thunder roar. Our God who has ears to hear. You who are hidden in the clouds; who watch us from where you are. You see all that the white has made us suffer. The white man’s god asks him to commit crimes. But the god within us wants to do good. Our god, who is so good, so just, He orders us to revenge our wrongs. It’s He who will direct our arms and bring us the victory. It’s He who will assist us. We all should throw away the image of the white men’s god who is so pitiless. Listen to the voice for liberty that speaks in all our hearts.

This prayer was uttered by one Boukman Dutty, said to have been a Voudoun priest himself(though this is in dispute, and in fact there is no evidence to support this, although he was associated and allied with Voodoo, or Voudoun, priests in the course of the revolt) who led the initial revolt against the French. He had formerly been a British slave sold to a French plantation owner. He was an educated man, as well as a giant of fierce appearance, and so was given a position of authority as a slave overseer on several plantations, which entailed traveling from one estate to the other on the island of St. Dominique (the former name of Haiti). This enabled him to gather intelligence and form bonds with future co-conspirators. He was eventually captured by the French and executed, his head placed on public display. (All of this by the way happened during the last decade of the 1790's, prior to the ascension of any of the Napoleons).

Killing him did not stop the revolution, which ended in massive loss of life, the slaughter of numerous French slave-holding families and citizens, and incalculable destruction of property. After some eight years, Haiti became a nation in 1804-the first republic of freed slaves in history.

Now put yourself in the position of a typical white person from this era who might have learned of this prayer after the fact, and saw it's results. Once you see it in context of the outright butchery that transpired in Haiti on the eve of the revolt and it's aftermath, and consider the very real and palpable fear this event inspired throughout the slave-owning world, especially in the western hemisphere, which would of course have included the American slave-owning southern plantation owners, it's easy to see why they would consider the God worshiped by these Haitians to be the devil, and why they would view any such prayer as above the equivalent of a pact with said devil.

The Haitian revolt was yet another shot heard round the world, and influenced slave policy for decades to come, including but not limited to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and the limitations on the slave trade in America which went into effect prior to the American Civil War. This website in fact claims that the Haitian revolt was the major, if not the sole reason, for the events that led to the eventual end of slavery. As for the "devil" whom Boukman invoked, 2nd look identifies him-

Boukman Dutty, a Voudou N’Gan (oungan, houngan, voodoo priest), killed a pig as a part of an African tribal ritual Bwa Kayiman, dedicated to his ancestors and Ogoun, God of fire, iron and war. Ogoun and Erzulie Dantor (Ezili Dantor), a Vodou l’wha (loa) a warrior spirit, responded to this call to protect these slave warriors.

So the "devil" in this case seems to be a West-Central African version of Ares, (which would certainly explain the resultant carnage) or possibly even Hephaestus (fire and iron). That would of course be a simplistic way of looking at it, as such identifications and cross-cultural associations are fraught with hazard by their natures, but there is some merit to it as well, seeing as how Voudoun, in this case Haitian Voudou, is itself a syncretic faith binding old Central-East African deities with Catholic Saints, many of whom in fact are alleged to be old Roman gods in disguise. In the case of Ogoun, the Catholic Saint most often associated with him (at least by Voudoun devotees in Brazil) is Saint George.

As for the actual ritual that called upon the vengeful deity Ogoun, I would point out that this particular ritual was probably nothing original, nor was Boukman the first to conduct it over the course of the preceding century of that oppressive French lash that stung and scarred multiple generations of Haitian backs.

Who actually was the devil here?

To people in the New World, especially to slave-owners, this was all understandably a matter of grave concern. Of course they viewed the prayer as a satanic pact. Actually it doubtless was a religious based pact, and according to this site, Voudoun itself, while it was a syncretic faith forged in an attempt to maintain ties to the beliefs of their ancestral African homeland, it was also an attempt by these same black Haitian slaves to plan for the day of revolt from the French. Even their animal sacrifices were symbolic of the day when the gods would join them in the battle against their oppressors.

Back to Robertson, who naturally views all this from the perspective of a fundamentalist Christian and who who, though he probably has some degree of empathy and understanding for those early Haitians desire to be free from the yoke of French slavery, would naturally view their faith, both then and as practiced to this day, with a great deal of alarm. To him, the satanic influence is obvious and undeniable.

Is this foolish? I think it is vastly ignorant especially to adhere to such a view today, even granted the very real problems of poverty, crime, illiteracy, and yes superstition which has gripped the island for far too long. However, Robertson is blaming the wrong source for these conditions, which owes more-far, far more-to the influence of the Duvalier family over the last fifty years, and before them, to a history of civil strife, insurrections, and assassinations. Is this the influence of some demonic entity, even granted the Duvaliers use and encouragement of the Haitian religious traditions, or does it have more to do with the lack of a culture of self-rule and governance, exacerbated by a lack of adequate development capabilities and trade potential?

It's safe to assume the French were not exactly breaking down doors to try to assist the Haitians in the development of their fledgling new nation, and it's a pretty safe bet no one else was in a hurry to do so either. Robertson should keep some of these factors in mind when he assigns demonic status and blame.

I don't mean to be too hard on Robertson, any more than I mean to excuse him, therefore as a matter of balance I will add that greatly overlooked the last few days has been the fact that Robertson uttered these words on his 700 Club cable program in the context of an appeal to his viewers to send aid for the purpose of helping victims of the recent Haitian disaster. So kindly bear that in mind as well. It is perfectly clear at the end of the already infamous video which follows, and in fact the number to call for the aid assistance appears at the beginning of the video as well-



Of course, it goes without saying that Robertson is hoping for a mass Christian conversion in Haiti. Seeing as how he believes conditions in Haiti, not only now but throughout the entire troubled history of the island, is directly traceable to a pact with the devil, how could he not hope for this?

Of course, the wags amongst us would suggest Pat is himself offering what is tantamount to a deal with the devil, in the guise of conversion to a God most easily identified in Voudoun as a God named Bondye, whom most practitioners of Haitian Voudou believe is, though supreme, inaccessible, a condition that necessitates their reliance on the various loa (spirit guides), in the form of pagan gods and ancestors.

How does this divide from Christianity all play out in general terms? There is a current belief in Haiti that, when the many trees on the island were felled a few years back, ostensibly to provide farmland for the impoverished yet growing population, this was actually a ploy meant to deprive practitioners of Voudou of vegetation, woods, and herbs required for their rituals. To this end, so goes the story, the Protestant Christians especially took special pains to eliminate the trees and other vegetation of Bois Caiman, where the original Voudoun cermeony performed by Boukman Dutty first transpired more than one hundred ten years ago. This is their attempt to combat the practice of the faith, and to "hinder remembrance of the event". Or so the story goes.

Meanwhile, Ogoun is yet worshiped today with offerings of tobacco and rum, while his devotees pray to him to provide a government that is more responsible to the needs of the people.

Pat and others would do well to remember that old saying-folks prefer the devils they know to those they do not.

President Hu Jin Tao, Tear, Down, This, Firewall

In light of certain parties in China apparently attempting to hack the G-Mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, in addition to several businesses and other organizations, Google is considering a change in it's China policy. It very likely will no longer adhere to China's censorship policies, and as such, might well withdraw from China all together. This is a move that has heralded acclaim from human rights watchdog groups, freedom of information and free speech ideologues, techno-geeks, and those who monitor advances in technology and relevant concerns in legal and ethical applications, like here.

But is there more to all this than meets the eye?

It would seem as though another prominent Chinese search engine, Baidu, was also hacked, by the Iranian Cyber Army, the same group that recently hacked Twitter.

This brings up, to me, an interesting prospect. Was the recent breach of Chinese search engine Baidu really conducted by the Iranian Cyber Army, or was it the Chinese looking for a scapegoat in order to conceal their own alleged actions against Google accounts by establishing a degree of plausible deniability?

If so, is it possible that the previous Twitter hack was in reality a test run conducted by the CCP, taking advantage of the recent turmoil in Iran in order to set up it's own espionage operations targeting Chinese dissidents who might also make use of Twitter?

Interestingly, the People's Daily On-Line has an account of the Baidu hack, but nothing about the controversy over Google.

Ahhh Those Insclutabal Olientals.

(Psssst-some people are saying Google is really just wanting to leave China because Baidu is cleaning their clocks, but don't tell anybody, because if that's true, that might upset Google shareholders even more, which might be why this article has been censored from Google's search engine, nyuk nyuk).

A Shocker Out Of Massachusetts, Maybe

Is it actually possible that the US Senate seat left vacant by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) could be filled by such a little known State Senator as Scott Brown-a fiscally conservative Republican?

Not only does the Boston Herald think so-it hopes so. The Herald has endorsed Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senator over Democrat Martha Coakley.

In fact, since Brown basically creamed Coakley in the last televised debate, Brown has picked up 1.3 million dollars in donations, despite a flurry of ads by Coakley where she accuses Brown of being-well, of being a Republican in all the worse ways-a charge to which Brown replies, well, er, yeah, guilty as charged on that Republican thing, but in all the best ways, actually.

Brown will not please everyone, to be sure. He is a social moderate who has proclaimed Roe v Wade settled law and has supported state funded embryonic stem cell research, on the grounds of jobs creation in Massachusetts in addition to the advancement of medical research into cures for various diseases.

My advice to social conservatives-learn to live with it.

Let's just hope he gets in there in time to keep the Harry Reid branch of the KKK from doing any more damage than it's already done. If they want to eat their own young as a consolation prize, who am I to object to that?

Blagojevich Comes Out Swinging

Former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich has a new dog (Skittles), a new source of income (Elvis impersonations) and — despite an old worry (prison) — a confounding optimism. You have to read this.

Yep, it's an in-depth interview conducted by Scott Raab with disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich-courtesy of Esquire.

Some fascinating stuff. To quote Blago from the article-

"A lot of what's happened to me is Machiavellian, and yet my vision and the rightness of what I've done is kind of Galilean."


And evidently, he called Barak Obama a cocksucker, and here claims that he is as black as Obama, because he shined shoes and his father owned a business in a black neighborhood.

On politicians in general-

"It's such a cynical business, and most of the people in the business are full of shit and phonies, but I was real, man — and am real.


Frankly, I can't wait for this guy to get on the stand. After all, this is a man who will do almost anything for his kids, short of blowing sailors.

Knee Deep In The Hoopla-Destination, Dark Ages

When Brit Hume suggests that Tiger Woods should think of becoming a Christian in order to achieve the kind of forgiveness that isn't available in Buddhism-which is Wood's stated religious belief-it behooves us to look rationally at what he is really saying, as opposed to the knee-jerk reactions that we typically see from most pundits who want to shut out any and all kind of public discourse regarding matters of faith.

The first thing we need to look at is the difference between the two faiths, and their usual approach to such matters as the Tiger Woods scandal. I am neither an expert at Buddhism or Christianity, but the main applicable difference, as I see it, is-

In Buddhism, one is taught that attachment to the material world is the cause of all hardships, grief, and anxiety. In order to extricate oneself from this situation, one needs to withdraw from the source of the problem. Otherwise, much like the oft-quoted definition of insanity, you are bound to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

In the case of Tiger Woods, the question becomes, to what extent is his personal peccadilloes, his sexual infidelities and the resultant marital woes, an outgrowth of the fame, wealth, and the adulation of his pro-golf life and lifestyle. An honest assessment might reveal that they are directly related. Or, this might not be the case, but it is almost a foregone conclusion that Wood's personal life and problems have certainly been enhanced as well as negatively influenced by his public persona.

The Buddhist approach would almost certainly suggest that, in order to begin the healing process, Woods should withdraw from public life, from professional golf, possibly even completely from golf, withdraw at least temporarily but for an extended time into a life of seclusion and reflection. There is a good probability that he would be led to withdraw permanently from his former life. There is even a chance he might be led to withdraw from any form of social life, including any present, past, or potentially future romantic or sexual relationships-including his relationship with his wife.

The Christian approach might be entirely different. Although it would almost definitely suggest a similar need for temporary withdrawal, prayer, and reflection, this would be more of a very brief and temporary approach, mainly to afford Woods a breathing space. It would be up to Woods to honestly look at where he needs to change his life, but the main thing he would be asked to look at is how, as a sinner, he can not possibly change himself, no matter how badly he might honestly want to do so.

The Christian answer would be for Woods to turn his life over to God by asking for forgiveness of his sins through the blood shed by Jesus Christ on the cross. He would be assured that by trusting in the shed blood of Christ, his sins would be forgiven. However, he must honestly desire this, and the only way this can possibly come about is if he recognizes the fact of his sinful nature and his need for God and for God's forgiveness.

What would follow is an incremental growing process. Once Woods is saved, it must be stressed that this does not mean that he is a changed person inside and out. He should, if truly saved, desire to change his life by following the Biblical command of Jesus to "go, and sin no more". There is no assurance that Woods would never sin again. There is only the assurance that, if he has faith, he can change, and he can grow. God can make of him a "new creature". Whether or not Woods remains in the world of pro-golf, with all the public pressure that brings, is up to him. But, it might well be a greater inducement for him to remain faithful, so he would doubtless bee encouraged to remain in the world of pro-golf.

The Bible never states that any such change is easy. In fact, it promises, in effect, that there will be a constant war between the spirit and the flesh. He would definitely be encouraged to reconcile with his wife, if that is at all possible, and he would be strongly discouraged, quite naturally, from any further extra-marital affairs (or premarital sexual relationships should he fail to reconcile with his wife).

But the main thing that should be stressed is that Brit Hume was, I think, referring to the effect on Tiger Woods life in the here and now should he become a Christian, as much as he was talking about the afterlife and prospect of going to heaven.

That is what Brit Hume meant, I think, when he made the statement that God would use Woods, if he became a Christian, as an example of his power and grace, of how through him such a person can rise above their sinful natures and be better than ever. There would not necessarily be a need to abandon the sport he loves that has brought him such success, and in fact, more than likely the world of pro-golf would remain an important part of Woods life, and God's plan, whereas in Buddhism, Woods would almost certainly be or feel encouraged to abandon that life completely, and irrevocably.

That's the way I look at Hume's statement anyway. I am sure there will continue to be those who will say that people like Hume should not make such public statements proselytizing for his faith. Well, for one thing, Hume is speaking from personal experience. He became a devout Christian following the death of his son, and it has helped him cope with the loss. His advice to Tiger was something that he felt obligated to offer in return for what he honestly feels God has done for him.

I would also point out that Hume made this statement in his capacity as commentator, not as a hard news reporter, but many others don't see it that way. Others simply disagree.

For other views on this complex subject and controversy, I would direct you to the following sites.

Buddhists are by no means in agreement with Hume's assessment, as might be expected, and this article points out that, if fact, Buddhists tend to to be more faithful in the marital relationships than Christians.

Atheists are by and large incensed, of course, incensed that the subject has even come up at all in the public sphere. One such site has honored Hume with the appellation Idiot Of The Week.

The Washington Post has an excellent piece up, by columnist Michael Gerson, which defends Brit Humes First Amendment right to express his opinion on the subject.

Gerson's column in fact expresses my sentiments exactly. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who need or deserved to be shut out of public discourse are those people and their ideals that proclaim the need to shut anyone or anything else out of public discourse.

So yes, I can defend Hume's right to make such statements without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with him, and I give short shrift to anyone that deigns it their constitutional right to limit the constitutional rights of others, even news commentators and Christians, out of some misguided notion or ideal of the need for laser guided and targeted tolerance or sensitivity.

I could and well might at some point offer reasons as to why I think Tiger Woods-or for that matter Brit Hume-might consider becoming a pagan. Such a proposal, were it ever to see the light of day in a major media outlet, might well be the subject of mirth in many quarters, but I seriously doubt I would be criticized for intolerance or insensitivity in the inherent implication that I dare to publicly proclaim my own faith superior to any other.

We're headed deeper and deeper these days into the well-charted but yet uncertain dark waters of a very old kind of intolerance. If we don't set a firm course of resistance, we might well find ourselves in way over our heads.

Socialist In Name Only

One of the biggest stories (well, one of the most important ones) during the last week of last year was the influence of China on the Global Climate Change Summit that took place in Copenhagen Denmark. The Summit itself was actually supposed to be that biggest story of the year. It's implications extended well beyond national borders to encompass the globe, because whatever was decided would of course have a global impact. And, if nothing was decided, that too would have a pronounced impact, even if you don't believe there is anything to Global Climate Change-or if you do but consider mankind's contribution to the phenomenon minimal to non-existent.

However, the biggest story of the year turned out to be China, and how it pretty much derailed the Summit.

This should have come as no big surprise to anybody. After all, it is by no means an exaggeration to suggest that China all but invented the concept of national sovereignty. Even back in the days of Mao, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, they made terrible communists, even by communist standards.

Now things have changed in a way that would have been unfathomable two decades ago. If conservative Democrats are DINOs and moderate Republicans are RINOs, I guess you could legitimately view the bureaucrats of the Chinese Communist Party as SINOs-Socialists In Name Only. Sure, they still have an oppressive, totalitarian regime held in place by one party rule, with next to nothing in the way of civil liberties and nothing approaching United States standards of constitutional protections.

Yet, they have a healthy and thriving capitalist economy, albeit this is tentative-one might say it is barely past the toddler stage. Will it grow and propser over time? If it does, will this lead to greater political and social freedoms? It's hard to say. If it does, it will probably be very gradual.

I seriously doubt we will see significant advances in our lifetimes, certainly not a multi-party system. But seeing as how much of a mess the West, including the US, has made of two-party and multi-party democracy, is that really such a bad thing?

Can a one party system over time evolve into a no-party system, where officials are appointed based on merit, possibly in time subject to the will of the voters? In point of fact, while it seems unlikely, China has executed public officials for corruption. So is China really politically communist, and if so, can it really evolve beyond that stage, seeing as how it was never a bona fide communist nation to begin with, but more of a feudal style, agrarian based dictatorship?

The real Great Leap Forward, the real Cultural Revolution, came about when China adopted capitalist economic reforms. It has in fact grown by leaps and bounds, and continues to grow today. Still, it has several albatrosses around it's neck. It has the crazy uncle nobody quite knows what to do with in North Korea. It has the unruly stepson in the form of Myanmar. Then there is Tibet. And of course Taiwan. China takes diplomatic heat for it's influence in these areas, and rightly so, especially it's attitude toward Sudan.

But amazingly, while it is easy to criticize them for dealing with Khartoum during the on-going human rights atrocities that government engages in in Darfur, their approach is actually-libertarian.

The difference seems to be, China tolerates the human rights abuses due to it's desire for Sudanese oil. The US does it in return for cooperation from Sudan in the Global War On Terror. The Chinese just sit back and watch it all happen, while the US moans and cries about it-and sits back and watches it all happen.

The Chinese excuse is that Sudan is, of course, a sovereign nation and should run their own internal affairs. So extreme is the situation in Darfur that this would be an incredible pronouncement from any nation but the one that built the Great Wall. China will never compromise it's national sovereignty, so any attempt to curb their economic growth will certainly be lost on them.

Hard to blame them. They look at the recent Global Climate Change e-mail fiasco out of England and no doubt they wonder, just who does the West think it's fooling. For all of the rhetoric, China sees the proposals put forth at the Copenhagen Summit as chiefly benefiting the European Union-and rightly so, when you consider the economic impact of the proposals, which would put Europe on firmer ground by leveling the playing field against all it's economic competitors, including China, in addition to India and the US.

What the European Union never took into consideration was, China was at one time a part of a European Empire. They have no desire to go that route again, and the people running the country don't intend for that to ever happen, certainly not under their watch.

I'm sure the world will somehow survive. I know China will in one form or another, no matter what steps they have to take to insure their survival. They are old masters at that game.

Angel Falls

Angel Falls, in Venezuela, was not actually named after "angels", it was just a happy coincidence that the first outsider to Venezuela to "discover" the Falls was an American bush pilot named Jimmy Angel, who in 1933, while searching for a river of gold, almost flew into the damn thing. Thus, the falls were named after him.

Or, well, they were, until Hugo Chavez decided to change that.

"This is ours, long before Angel arrived there," Chávez said on his weekly television show, in front of a painted mural of the falls and surrounding wilderness. "This is indigenous property, ours, aborigine."

Henceforth the falls are to be known as Kerepakupai-Merú, which means "waterfall of the deepest place" in the indigenous Pemon language.

"One could say he was the first one to see it from a plane," Chávez said of Angel. "But how many millions of indigenous eyes saw it, and prayed to it? No one should refer to Angel Falls any more."

For all that fool knows, those more like tens of thousands of indigenous eyes probably wondered who those giants were and why they were constantly pissing down the mountain. Now, based on nothing but Hugo's Supreme Will And Ego, he has decided to arbitrarily rename a world renown tourist attraction to something that is meaningless, to say nothing of unpronounceable, to probably 99.9% of the earth's inhabitants.

Of course, what Hugo is really ticked off about is this.

Seems like Columbia has been using drones to monitor activities along their pipeline routes, in order to protect against rebel attacks. Hugo is convinced the CIA and Columbia is planning sabotage and a possible attack against the All-Mighty Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Columbians just laughed at Hugo, suggesting he mistook Santa's sleigh for a spy plane.

So I guess you could say Hugo has a big problem with American pilots in general, which put Jimmy Angel on his shit list.

So How Was YOUR New Year's?

Well, I followed my New Year's plan. Right before the clock struck twelve I went outside and breathed in the cold night air of the New Year. After that, I posted the rather whimsical little musical video, which was more positive than the more somber post that preceded it. While I was outside, I did more than stand there and breathe in and out as I wished myself a Happy New Year. I practically cast a circle around my home, starting at the north, in back. I guess you could say I took stock of my life.

While at the north, I found myself focused on the illusory nature of health and prosperity, which can vanish as easily as it appears. At the east, I found myself at first caught up in a plan to add more pleasurable surroundings to the old estate, such as it is, before I realized it would be even better to recognize the need to see more clearly through the facade thrown up by certain individuals-to say nothing of myself. It was while at the south that I found myself somewhat at a loss. My spiritual energies have been much too monopolized in the expenditure towards a kind of psychic self-defense towards perceived encroachments, fighting a shadow war based on false perceptions and misapprehensions. Far better to expend such energies in reaching out, as opposed to withdrawing inside a fortress of solitude. It was while at the west, however, that I really had a moment of enlightenment. I came face to face with the fact that I have been in the grip of an emotional fear that is so encompassing, you learn to live with it and adapt to it, without necessarily dealing with the causes, and their effects. I could feel it and almost taste it, as though it were a tangible thing. And in that one brief instant-I walked away from it in haste.

Yes, I have some ways to go yet. But the New Year beckons. It's been somewhat tedious the last few days. Also very hectic. I started to post something last night, but my browser, or something, wasn't responding. I kept trying to go back to something to edit, after I had posted several paragraphs. I clicked and clicked and clicked, and cursed and cursed and cursed, until, suddenly, for no apparent reason-everything I had composed just magically disappeared. It didn't take too long for me to figure out I wasn't going to be able to pull it back.

That's pretty much the way life is, isn't it? For something that seems so tangible and solid, it really is all so-I think the right word might be ephemeral.

It was a post about China, incidentally, the first of a series I was going to do about subjects to watch for over the course of the coming year based on important events that transpired during or close to the Winter Solstice.

I think I'll get around to doing that too, hopefully before the year is half over. This post has been brought to you by a need to let you know I'm still around, just kind of overwhelmed the last few days.

Peace out.

Tomorrow Today Will Be Yesterday

Happy New Year

That's a wish, not an observation. The way I see it, there's only one of two ways to see this one in. The choice is yours, of course, but unfortunately there's no in between. You either get shitfaced hammered, or you don't drink a drop. I would prefer you did the latter, but that's up to you.

Personally, I'm going to step outside for a few minutes, out in the cold dark night air, and take a few deep breaths. I want to breathe in the new year, and hope like hell it's not like the last one.

Cold, harsh reality. It's not going to be easy, so why pretty it up and pretend it might turn out pretty good if you don't really believe it? There's a time to party and live it up. I can't see this as one of those times. Sure, I've got plenty to be thankful for as well, and I want to express thanks for that, and determine to hold on to it. All the more reason not to drink or get high. Stay in control, and look reality square in the eyes. Fantasy during hard times can be helpful to a point, but after so long it can become a false friend and a hollow dream.

See, we've all got plenty to be pissed off about too, and the right to express that. We might even have the duty to do so. Making merry just might be a little bit inappropriate.

Everybody's A Critic These Days

Akhmal Shaikh, British citizen of Pakistani descent, took a trip to China one day, armed with nothing but a song he hoped to use to land a recording contract, in the hopes his charming little tune would usher in world peace in the name of Allah.

He got off the plane in Beijing. He was stopped and interrogated and then jailed by the Chinese authorities. They heard his pleas, and I guess they got around to playing his song, featured in the YouTube video below.

Then they killed him.



Oh, okay, he was also carrying a suitcase stuffed chock full of heroin, enough to kill more than twenty-five thousand people. According to his supporters, he was tricked into carrying it into China by drug smugglers, while in Poland.

He was supposedly bi-polar, so the British objected to his pending execution, but the Chinese were unrelenting. Personally, I still think it was partly because of the song. It certainly didn't help his cause. Somebody wanting to put out a song in the name of Allah for the ostensible purpose of ushering in world peace might want to try a different venue than the People's Republic of China. They seem to have this thing about religious fanatics. Ask the Falon Gong.

In the meantime, go over to the YouTube page and join the fun in the comments section.

Max Baucus Expounds The Basic Points Of Democratic Party Philosophy

Listen to this drunken old fool on the floor of the Senate, and tell me why I'm not right in insisting the worse thing the Republican Party ever did was oppose the procedure of abortion that is guaranteed to end the life of at least three Democrats for every one Republican before they ever get started.



As if that is not enough, you have this imbecile denying Baucus is drunk for the simple fact he is, according to this apparatchik at least, right on the issue in question. He is just revved up and excited, you see. The fact that every single commenter to this incredibly stupid post has lambasted this guy in the strongest terms imaginable should serve to tell you which way the wind is blowing, especially since this is a San Francisco Chronicles blog.

And that really brings me to my main point. The fact that Baucus seems to be shit-faced drunk is really secondary in importance to the spectacle that has been unfolding in the US Senate now for the past few months, which only gets worse as time goes on.

The simple fact is, the Democrats don't give a shit about the will of the voters, and the fact that the Republicans so seem to care about the wishes of the people who did, after all, put all members of both parties into office, is viewed as an act of cowardice.

Think about that. I don't know how I could possibly stress that enough, or too much. Baucus lays it all out in no uncertain terms in the YouTube video above. Yes, you drunken old corrupt fucking fool, it takes courage to flaunt the will of the voters, if you consider arrogance, corruption, and power-madness courage.

So is he right? Are the Republicans cowards? Are they afraid of the people? I sure as hell hope so, because god damn you, you steaming, stinking pile of shit, they're supposed to be, and so are you. And if you are not, you had damned well better start learning to be.

Happy Christmas-War Is Over-And Over, And Over, And-

When Christianity took over the world of the Roman Empire, it did so practically without firing a shot. It was not a bloody military takeover, or a coup. A lot of people today seem to think it was a controversial event. In reality, Christianity was arguably the fastest, largest, most widespread movement in history up until that time. Years of official repression of the faith did next to nothing to slow the tide of disaffection from the officially sanctioned cults over to the new, foreign faith.

How this happened, and why, is not so hard to see. Christianity was open to anyone, of all races, of all classes, even to slaves. It was open to the common citizens of Rome. It was perhaps most importantly open to the Freedmen-those former slaves and sons of slaves who by the virtue of their merit and value to the Empire had won their freedom, and citizenship.

Yet, for many of these people, inclusion within the major cults of Rome was not an option. In order to be a member of most of the pagan cults of ancient Rome, you had to have a sponsor-a patron, if you will. You spent some time, possibly years, as a neophyte, before you finally were accepted as a full-fledged member. After that, you were expected to pay a regular fee, in addition to performing specific duties. It is not going too far to say that joining one of these cults was not so much like becoming a member of a religion as it was, at best, like joining a secret society like the Masons. At worse, it was more like joining a country club.

It was an arduous, time consuming process that, it bears repeating, was not open to slaves, or to common citizens, or even to the many valued and important Freedmen-who nevertheless made up the civil servants, public officials, and even the highly paid and skilled members of Roman society who, in point of fact, kept the Roman Empire not only running smoothly, but functional.

Like the slaves and commoners, they could not simply walk into the environs of a pagan temple, attend a worship service, and at the end walk up toward the front and express a wish to become a member of the sect. Such a thing would have been unheard of at the time.

Certainly, anybody could go to a temple during set times and during certain periods, and pray, and naturally they could offer some form of sacrifice, or offering. Actually, this would be expected-and required. But as far as being an actual member of the temple sect community, they were wholly excluded.

Even though most households had their households deities to whom they ostensibly prayed and worshiped, and even though the citizens of Rome partook in the various different religious fesitivities-such as the Saturnalia, for example-this is something they did as a family, in the first instance, or in the latter case as members of the wider community of Rome, during these limited festive occasions. There was outside of this, however, nothing to make them feel as though they were a part of a specific religious community, which meant they were lacking in spiritual guidance and religious education, something for which there was a natural hunger and yearning.

What they had that might have been available was limited to the many mythologies that were created to serve as explanations for natural phenomenon, or in some cases, they were actually created by the state as a way of augmenting and rationalizing the power of the state as a prerogative granted from on high by divine providence.

Virgil's The Aeneid was a pertinent example of the latter case. The Aeneid, to this day considered a classic, and even by many as a sequel to Homer's Illiad, was actually commissioned by the Emperor Augustus as a way of gaining acceptance of the belief in his divine right to rule as Imperator of the former Republic of Rome. At one point within the work, Augustus's birth is "prophesied". This in fact was a "prophecy" that was years later mistakenly taken as a prophecy of the birth of Christ.

Outside of these instances, there was no great religious or philosophical teachings available to the vast majority of Roman citizens-until that is Christianity came along. Once it outpaced its rival foreign sects amongst the general populace, and continued to grow, the Roman elites knew they had both a potential souce of many problems, and at the same time, a valuable opportunity.

In other words, the rulers of Rome did not force Christianity on the people of Rome. Instead, the Roman rulers actually jumped on the bandwagon, beginning with Constantine. Once Christianity became over time the officially sanctioned cult of the Roman Empire, it was not long before all others were officially discouraged, and then, unfortunately, all-together outlawed. This was more than likely a way to insure unity and cohesion within the Empire, but let's be clear on this-even at that, there was not a great deal of disruption, and certainly little in the way of bloodshed, or for that matter even protest.

The new Christian leaders were hardly the same as the old disciples and apostles who made their way uneasily out of the Judaean wilderness and the Galilee. For the most part, by the time Christianity became the official religion of Rome, most of these leaders were in fact native born and educated Romans themselves. As such, they were very savvy, both politically and socially. They very wisely expropriated the most popular of the ancient Roman cult festivals, and adapted them to the new Christian faith with remarkable ease. Christmas and Easter are the two most obvious examples of this process.

The peoples of Rome then were given the best of both worlds. They were given, with Christianity, a religion with a religious community to which they felt they could belong and contribute in a positive way, to a movement which taught them that they were equal in the eyes of a loving, all-powerful God who would forgive their sins and take them at the end of their life for an eternity in heaven. As a sop, they were allowed to keep the only thing from the old pagan traditions that they ever really cared about to begin with-the festive holidays that they all enjoyed and which brought some degree of pleasure and relief to what had been a meager, unfulfilling, perhaps in some cases even a miserable existence.

And all they had to give up in order to have all this was a bunch of cults made up of people that would not allow them to join anyway, who worshiped a bunch of deities that didn't really give a rat's ass about them or their families, from their perspective-assuming they even really existed at all.

For the vast majority of the citizens of Rome, it was not a hard bargain at all. Even most of the ones who truly cared about the old cults-that is to say, those who were allowed to belong to them-adapting to the change was probably far easier than we might imagine. After all, for most of them, belonging to these cults was not a matter of faith, so much as it was a factor of elite privilege and distinction, and for that matter, a means to influence. After all, if you were accepted, you could hob-nob with the great and the near great. The religious cult trappings, while doubtless endearing and attractive, possibly even charming and creative, were more minor considerations.

The fact that Christianity, and the Church, over time became more and more corrupt, is a simple fact of the dangers of power. The Roman cults, like ancient Rome itslef, likewise was corrupt. That goes with the territory. It was this corruption that did indeed lead to suppression, sometimes by brutal violence, of other religious beliefs. This is true of the treatment of the Church towards holdouts from among the old pagan cults, of course, what few might have remained, but it should be pointed out that this was mainly the case of rival movements within Christianity itself-the so-called Gnostics, who were as brutally persecuted by the Church as the early Christians had been by the leaders of pagan Rome.

The whole process was repeated throughout the Empire, including Europe, where Germanic chieftains would adopt Christianity, and then lead a movement to evangelize and baptize their people, all of whom typically acquiesced without protest.

Many of the new pagan philosophies of the modern day seem to have learned the lesson of the past, and forgotten others. They know that in order for them to grow, they have to be open and inclusive of the general population. That is the lesson they have learned.

What they have forgotten is that with great power and influence come not merely the potential, but the certainty of corruption. The fact that so many of them have so unfortunately become so enmeshed in Democratic and Green Party politics is perfectly illustrative of that point. We already have certain people just chomping at the bits to write the newer, modern version of the Aeneid, in which the gods and goddesses who reign over the natural gas and oil reserves of the earth are ready to lash out with a vengeance against the evil mortals who "plunder" their domains, and at the same time stand in the way of they and their friends and associates reaping the benefits and the rewards, inherent in the presumed promise and potential of green energy.

For the good of Mother Earth, of course.

A good clue to the intentions of people who complain about the influence of Christians on the American political climate is that they have chosen to throw their lot in with a political party to whom the power of the federal government is seen as a means to several self-serving ends, usually involving increasing bureaucracies and regulations, taxation, and suppression of individual liberties for the benefit of mostly a few groups inculcated with a culture of entitlement. Some people would seem to want to add the pagan movement to that ever growing list of grievance groups.

I'll put this as delicately as I know how. The Christians can keep their power and influence. They are more than welcome to the corruption it brings. I know that if they go too far, the people in general, including many from among their own ranks, will rebel and boost them from their lofty perch as surely as Martin Luther gave the Pope his walking papers centuries ago.

I don't want the drama. I didn't sign on to be a part of a political movement, it has been thrust upon me. I would just as soon be a member of an exclusive, elite, secret society that aims for the personal growth and spiritual development of it's own members, and yet might in some way make a positive contribution to society and humanity, while keeping most of them at arms length, thank you.

Failing all that, I'm fine with just being a member of an exclusive country club.

Instead, I spend my time preaching the virtues of Federalism and hoping somebody somewhere listens, and feeling all the while like I'm preaching to a bunch of kids about the value of eating their spinach while their cramming Milky Way bars in their mouths. And it's not even nothing against Milky Way bars, in my case, so much as it is perspective and moderation.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night? I guess so. Maybe one of these days we'll all have a good laugh over all this, if we don't end up killing each other first.

Yule Song Video-Help

Probably the most spirited, fun-loving, joyful cry for "Help" ever recorded, this song is the perfect opening song for this year's Yule Sabbat. This is equally true of the video, as will become apparent towards the end.

Yule Tarot

You just can't make this stuff up. On top of that, a second drawing netted me the King of Pentacles, which I did out of concern I might not have been focused enough the first time. Still, it does indeed fit, especially since I drew it reversed. Hard times and all. Well, make the most of that lump of coal, if you can.

Plus, we have Mars getting ready to go retrograde, which can be troublesome, seeing as how it is currently in Leo, thus in opposition to both Jupiter and Neptune in Aquarius, while Saturn is in Libra, this in an off-centered opposition to Uranus in Pisces. The Sun of course is conjunct Pluto in Capricorn, and sextile the Moon in Pisces. Mercury? He's in Capricorn (never far from the sun) but way up a bit, sextile to Uranus, while the lovely Venus is back a ways, back in Sagittarius in fact, in a sextile to Jupiter and Neptune, and squared Uranus. And oh yeah, trine Mars.

Cold weather we're having, huh?

If you are wondering what to buy in the way of a Christmas present, look no further than this Wall Street Journal article which details some really high quality wines at seemingly bargain basement prices. Naturally, some of these wines would make for a good Yule Sabbat celebration as well.

Or, you can go a much simpler route, with this tasty recipe. It is called, appropriately enough, A Cold Winter's Night.

Booze
1 part Peppermint schnapps

Mixers
4 parts Hot chocolate

Garnishes
Marshmallows
Directions
Warm up next the fire and add a blast of peppermint schnapps to your hot cocoa. Marshmellows? Sure. Or go real festive and stick a candy cane in there. Merry Holidays!

Coolest Animal In The Universe

My favorite animal, the cat. I think I'll just arbitrarily designate it as the power animal of the year. And since it's Yule, this video of a young cat seems fitting. If you have a cat, this might give you a good hint as to what it might appreciate in the way of a present.

Wolf Run

For those of you interested in animals, you might want to check out this website by Wolf Run Park. Wolf Run is located in Jessamine County Kentucky, and it is staffed by mostly volunteers and is dependent on donations of both food and money. They take in animals that are no capable of making it in the wild for whatever reason. Their most recent resident is a fawn that somebody found and decided to keep as a pet. As you might imagine, that didn't turn out so great after the fawn grew to be an adult deer.

And of course, the animals are separated by type. You have wolves and cougars there as well, and others varieties of wild animals. If you would like to contribute you can do so from their web page.

Frankie

Since Yule is the time for the celebration of the "rebirth" of the sun god and the cycle of life, it behooves us to contemplate what an awesome responsibility it is to bring new life into the world. Some of us are cut out for it, some of us are not.

Some of us grow into it. Some of us just walk away.

Pagans Against Child Abuse

blogger Rob Taylor of Red Alerts is a member of a group called Pagans Against Child Abuse, which works to prevent child exploitation and abuse, both on-line and out in "the real world". It should be noted here that, if you wish to join the group, which has an on-line chat function, forums, and a wide-ranging diversity of topics as well as members, you do not have to be a pagan to join. All are welcome.

They are currently involved in the circulation of a petition against the gay-activist group GLSEN, but it is incumbent on me to point out that this is in no way, shape, or fashion, an anti-gay agenda. I've known Rob long enough to know that he is a staunch supporter of gay rights, as is his wife, who blogs under the name Jenn Q. Public. He is actually much more pro-gay rights than I am, and in fact sometimes when I read his posts I think, when the fuck did he get bit by the PC mosquito? But that's just Rob, who is actually pretty conservative, maybe more so than me on some things. The point is, the reason for the petition is not anti-gay, it is basically aimed at a reading list GLSEN has endorsed that includes books that seem to encourage child-adult sex.

Check out the link I provided and, if you are in agreement, join the group and/or sign the petition.

So Just Who Is The Grinch Here?

Like Baltimore doesn't have enough problems with the blizzard, and with exploding water lines turning streets into rivers, and a mayor who is so corrupt she makes your average Afghan warlord look like a man of integrity, an explosive crime rate, ACORN thugs, etc, etc., ad nauseum, they have now gone all out. Now they are suing Wells Fargo for, of all things, reverse redlining.

I shit you not. Because Wells Fargo foreclosed on a few hundred homes, in a city where thousands of properties lay vacant, they seem to feel like the bank has damaged the city in some way. Okay, now the only thing I can figure about this is, they are distressed about the lack of property taxes. But would not the bank be obliged to pay these taxes, since they technically own them now? Or were they expected to pay the property taxes the owners couldn't pay, obviously, since they couldn't pay their mortgages, or wouldn't.

They sued Fargo back a ways for the practice of red-lining. That is where banks target areas as bad investments due to poverty and the unlikelihood residents will pay their mortgages. Since it just so happened most of the people in these neighborhoods were black, it was decreed a racist policy, of course, and the feds eventually told them to cut that out.

Reverse red-lining then is where a bank obeys the law and sells an x amount of what it assumes are likely to be bad mortgages, but does so with sub-prime interest arrangements when the recipients actually qualify for the lowest fixed rates available.

The judge overseeing the case has decided the city has no real standing to collect damages and has said he will limit the scope of the lawsuit.

It just amazes me that a city that is so poorly run, mismanaged, and obviously corrupt would have the temerity to try something like this. But then again, thousands of Baltimore residents every year give themselves a Christmas present, albeit sometimes a late one, that should be reflected in the next census.

They leave.

You would think the people who run the city would learn something from that, but then again, if they did, they might have to sue themselves.

As Good As It Gets

Since Obama is going to probably get a chance to appoint at least one more justice to the Supreme Court between now and the time he leaves office, even if that is at the end of his first term, I am going to assume (and fucking hope) that the judge he replaces will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Here is who I suggest he nominate in her place. Unlike most of his other prospects, she might actually grow into the job.

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen

Looks like the war on Christmas is with us once more, and the likely casualties are not going to be the churches or worshipers, or those who want to limit public displays of religion, but private and corporate business owners who stray into the no-man’s land of political correctness. In a nation where well over half of the citizens still consider themselves Christians, a good rule of thumb might be, if you want to keep their business, don’t piss them off, because they can always find somewhere else to go.

You can almost hear them shouting now, “HEY FUCK YOU-MERRY CHRISTMAS, CHRISTMAS TREE, THE FIRST NOEL, JOLLY OLD SAINT NICK, AVE MARIA, AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, SUCK A JOLLY DICK. SUE THAT, ACLU!”

Because what it all boils down to is, they can’t do anything about a judge that orders a Nativity Scene taken away from a public park, nor can they do much when their kid’s public school bans caroling or Christmas pageants. But they can sure as hell make life miserable for any store that tells it’s clerks to not say Merry Christmas.

I don’t blame them. How is it any different from Al Sharpton leading a boycott of advertisers demanding Don Imus be fired for referring to the female Rutger’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”? How is it any different than when he, Jesse Jackson, and other civil rights activists lead a boycott of South Carolina over the Confederate flag?

More to the point, what can anybody do about it? I think it’s well played myself, and not a little hilarious. Look, it’s just this simple. If you want to keep their business, give them what they want. Otherwise, bow out gracefully. At least you’ll have your dignity, and maybe a tax write-off.

Where We Lead

The climate change summit in Copenhagen didn’t seem to accomplish much, but there are several lessons we can take from it. One, most global change activists and environmentalists are communists, radicals, or other leftists. That is not exactly a newsflash to most of us, but for those who might question that, a good rule of thumb is that when you are a visitor to a foreign country, you should respect that nation’s national sovereignty, and the property of it’s citizens. When you don’t, you should not be surprised when the police of said host country knock you up the side of the head and throw your silly ass in jail.

A few other observations-all of a sudden, all of the major nations involved at the summit are big fans of the concept of national sovereignty, except of course when it comes to the US. We are, of course, expected to “lead”, which brings me to yet another observation-

When another country calls on the US to “lead” by example, what they are really saying is “kindly do what the fuck we tell you to do”.

I grudgingly give Obama some degree of credit for having the balls to walk into a conference with the Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians uninvited with the intention of forging an “agreement” between those nations on carbon emissions reductions and ways to verify them. I just don’t expect much to come of it, and neither should you.

Of course, I take away with the other hand for Obama’s stubborn refusal to recognize that he doesn’t really have the authority to use the EPA as a tools for exercising the terms of the agreement, which is what he seems to be promising to do. On the face of it, it is unconstitutional, and there is currently a petition making the rounds, intended for the delegates of the summit, reminding them that the president cannot arbitrarily sign a treaty or enforce it without the consent of Congress.

I disagree with this petition in one regard. I actually don’t think Congress has the right to make any such international multi-lateral treaty (including trade agreements), but they are certainly right that Obama doesn’t have any such constitutional authority.

Finally, I should point out that the one solid agreement reached is actually the only one necessary to reduce and possibly even reverse global climate change. The answer-

TREES TREES TREES TREES TREES TREES TREES, ETC.

Oh yeah, and restoring land contours in heavily mined areas. You go all out to do those things and you solve the problem, to whatever extent man is capable of solving it, regardless of whether or not global climate change is caused by man, to whatever degree. Without a large influx of new trees and other vegetation, and restoring land contours, anything else you might do is useless at best.

That is not to say you can’t work to reduce carbon emissions, just do it for the right reasons. Do it to clean up your immediate environment. Who wants to live in Beijing? I don’t, nor anyplace remotely that nasty. Clean it up for that reason, just don’t expect it to solve anything having anything to do with global climate change. The ocean levels are rising and threatening to engulf entire populated islands? Tell the Indians and Indonesians to stop pissing in their rivers and you’ll come as close to reversing the rising ocean levels as you will by reducing carbon emissions.

Here in the US, the federal government doesn’t even have to be that involved, other than as maybe an arbitrator in any dispute between two bordering states, or in the case of a citizen lawsuit if state lawmakers refuse to clean it up regardless of the wishes of state citizens.

You want alternative energy sources? Fine, do that too, it will help keep the price of oil and gas lower by increasing supplies. The more alternative energy you have, the more gas and oil you will have to work with as a consequence. Work especially on hydroelectric, hydrogen fuel cells for cars, and geothermal energy. Most especially, work to develop safe nuclear energy, if you are really serious about developing clean, cheap, and efficient alternative energy. Don’t go on about solar and wind and expect to be taken seriously, and leave my fucking corn alone. I want to eat it for less than five fucking dollars an ear, thank you.

If you want that kind of fuel, there is always switch grass, and for that matter, all those extra new trees you’ll probably never plant might provide a large source of some kind of future fuel, to say nothing of tons of fresh lumber for housing. You might also create in the meantime new and expanded eco-systems for the wildlife many of you are so allegedly concerned about.

Of course, none of this really matters, because none of this is really about reversing global climate change or about alternative energy sources, it’s mainly about a handful of elitist schmucks transferring wealth and power from the pockets of business and private citizens to their own, and US wealth to the hands of a handful of mainly European, but also some other, power structures and alliances. Otherwise, this problem would be easily solved, and would have been long ago.

We Need Our Heroes

I think it’s high time we rethought our definition of the word hero, with an eye toward bringing it back in line towards what it originally meant to the ancient Greeks. One thing we should note is that a hero is not by definition necessarily a “good person”, or a “role model”. With that in mind, people such as Tiger Woods and Chris Henry are not, ironically enough, excluded from consideration. In fact, it’s not going too far to suggest that heroes are mostly bad people, or at the very least, good to average people who have made stupid decisions or committed evil acts, even if unknowingly, that demand expiation. Hercules murdered his wife and child in a fit of insane rage-said to be inspired by a capricious Hera, but resulting in a blood guilt all the same. Orestes murdered his own mother, obliged by divine law to do so to avenge the death of his father. Yet due to another ancient principle, this demanded expiation of a blood guilt as well.

Thus, a hero is somebody who has to follow a certain path to rectify some wrong, maybe some grave injustice or crime. He does so knowing the outcome will likely lead to nothing but misery for him, and quite possibly even his ultimate demise, but he does so anyway, just because it’s the “right” thing to do. He has no hope of reward. In fact, he understands all too well that he has moved far beyond any hope of such gratification.

He certainly doesn’t do so in the hopes that he might make-or retain-the capacity to make multi-millions of dollars in endorsement deals because he can swing a golf club better and with more accuracy than most, or because he can catch a football under adverse condition and make significant yardage against trained and talented competitors.

It’s too late for Chris Henry, who it has been said genuinely tried to turn his life around toward the end of it. There are those who will say that Henry, whom one judge some time ago referred to as a “one man crime spree”, did not really try to change. If he had, he would not have found himself embroiled in the domestic dispute with his fiancé that resulted in his death from falling from the back of the moving pick-up truck he had jumped onto in order to continue the argument from which she seemingly was determined to extricate herself.

That of course flies in the face of the reality of human life. People don’t really change their true natures. They only change their outward actions, or try to change them. They try to adopt new lifestyles and new habits, in the hopes that this will help them mature as people. It doesn’t mean they never screw up again, or that they have become a “changed person”. It is disingenuous for some to complain that Henry should not be considered a hero. He was actually in his last months closer to the definition of the word than most other athletes, in the sense of a person who tries to rectify his past mistakes. I certainly take exception to the view of one columnist who proclaimed, with the self-righteous swagger of the politically correct know-it-all, that the recognition of Chris Henry by the Bengals and the NFL was somehow an “insult to women”. Chris Henry’s past crimes had little to do with women. Most of his crimes were actually trivial-DUI, marijuana possession, assault, a gun charge, etc. Yes, he was a thug. Possibly the worse thing he did was have underage girls in his hotel room, drinking, yet there was no charge of sexual misconduct. One woman did accuse Henry once of sexual assault, but under questioning this turned out to be a bogus charge, for which the woman was prosecuted.

Now he is dead, but the alleged domestic dispute that led to this tragedy is too nebulous in nature for us to draw much in the way of conclusions as to blame. More to the point, there is nothing in Henry’s past that would point to abuse of women as being a systemic part of his nature. Chris Henry was, in general terms, no more or no less than a talented athlete with a troubled personal life. Not a good person, but not necessarily a bad person either, just a flawed human being who wanted to turn his life around.

The only thing that disqualifies him from hero status is not the fact that he was not a good role model, it is the implication that he probably would not have cared to change his life was there no potential to save his football career. And even that is not for sure. It is something that we will just never know for certain.

Chris Henry was rightly criticized for his crimes, even though a white player with similar flaws or worse would not raise such issues, though at the same time, neither would he have been given the multiple chances Henry was granted.

And that brings us to the crux of the matter. That brings us to Tiger Woods. Tiger Woods was not a self-made man. He was a creation of a media and a society that yearns for heroes, and most especially for black heroes. I have seen this phenomenon time after time. A fairly good or basically average football player becomes a player with a lot of potential. A good player becomes a great player. A great player becomes practically a god. It is almost a kind of reverse bigotry. We hold these people up as examples of what we think black children should aspire to become. We still want them to become singers, dancers, actors, musicians, and athletes. The more of them we prop up in such a way, the more role models we can use to convince ourselves that black people have the potential to be great. The fact that we recognize this proves we are not racists, even though the reality is, we fear that without these role models, black children will grow up to be thugs, drug addicts, rapists, and murderers. We almost know they will never aspire to hold down a stable career and raise a family. We know they will all be lazy, shiftless, thieving, uneducated fools who we have to keep on welfare to keep them from really going off the rails and maybe killing and eating all of us.

There is also an even worse possibility than that. There is the disturbing and even horrifying prospect that they might be like Clarence Thomas-that is to say, as good as or better than we Caucasian folk after all, which would really make us all look like fuckwits. In order to head off that potential embarrassment, we make sure we apportion a handful of straw bosses like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and some others of that ilk, to “look out for the interests” of “people of color” (this by the way is how you should refer to them, instead of the racist term “colored people”) on the modern inner-city plantation where they are kept in line for the next election day. In the meantime, we teach them that they should be proud of their black heritage-which evidently means to make sure they father or give birth to at least two illegitimate kids before they are sent off to spend half their lives in some fucked up prison system, in retaliation for having the temerity to act in some way that might serve to illustrate that the liberal policies of the day just might not work as good as we like to insist they do.

In other words, the blacks we send to prison aren’t really being punished for being rapists, murderers, and thieves. We know they can’t really help that. They are being punished for being uppity blacks who a few too many times it seems left the reservation, where the race as a whole is being helped up the evolutionary ladder, courtesy of the kindness of white progressives and the expropriated funds of the white working and middle classes.

Of course, we understand that it might take a few generations before they get to the right level. And that is where people like Tiger Woods comes in. Although we deny it, a large percentage of blacks are naturally gifted at sports. This is partly due to genetic factors, but just as importantly, it is due to selective breeding going back through multiple generations as practiced by white slave owners. They were purposely bred to work long hard hours in adverse conditions. Over time, this translated into the capacity to excel in sports. It also gave them the capacity to be sexual titans in the bedroom. Of course, we don’t like to see that, and we will crucify anybody that points that out (and yes, I know, I’ve got it coming), but this is because we can’t face up to our own guilt. We can’t face up to our own crimes.

Instead of seeing things the way they are, we instead look for ways to modify our guilt. Blacks don’t have to be physical brutes who might well fuck our precious-and ready, willing, and eager-little girls and leave us with the embarrassment of mulatto grandchildren we have to pretend to love because they are “just as good as the others”.

They can be like Tiger. They can be civilized gentlemen who excel in sports and life and raise stable, caring, functional families. Black people should really be like Tiger, you see, so let us prop him up and make sure black kids see that, if you work hard and play by the rules, you too can be a successful sports hero and multi-billionaire.

And everybody will love, admire, and perhaps even worship you.

Well, as it turns out, he got more than his fair share of love. The last I checked, he was just one woman shy of having enough to station at every hole of a regulation golf course. Well, make that two, as his wife has seemingly had enough. Not that I feel the least bit of sympathy for her. Well, I do, but only if she was so fucking stupid as to actually believe she was in this marriage as anything but a trophy wife-yet another symbol of the success and promise of what a black man can attain. If they’re good little boys, that is.

The only thing that is amazing about all of this is how people are so willfully blind to this incredibly obvious process that we partake in. Our attempt to create and stage manage black heroes for public consumption, the edification of the black community, and mainly as a means of guilt expiation, is itself almost a heroic effort, if it wasn’t at once so laughable, yet so tragic. Yet, we do it because we feel we must. We derive no real benefit. We just hope we as a society derive some degree of justification for our past excesses.

In the meantime, we overlook the real heroes. A cop who dies in the line of duty while doing the right things, even though he knows he will derive no real benefit if he does survive. A soldier who throws himself on a grenade when he can just as easily jump the other way, to save an already wounded and dying soldier and give him just a few extra seconds chance to pull through in the unlikely event reinforcements might arrive. The working stiff who holds down a dead-end job, maybe two of them, just to feed a family who really doesn’t have enough sense to appreciate the sacrifice he has made and continues to make every day. The teenage unwed mother or father who chucks all hope for the future in order to provide for the new life he or she has brought into the world due to his or her own stupidity.

Maybe even the prostitute who continues to sell her body because that’s the only way she can provide for her child, even though she knows she is technically a criminal, a social pariah, and a danger to her customers and to herself-yet she continues to demean herself out of love for that child. What else can she do?

If she’s lucky, she might one day get to stand by that eighteenth hole. She doesn’t hold out any realistic hope of that, or of anything remotely better than what her prospects are in reality. That is what makes her a hero. She wants to do something else, and possibly could do something else, but in order to do so, she would have to absolve herself of her responsibilities. She will not do that. Rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, she will continue.

Like I said, heroes aren’t always good people. They are not always role models. We might not actually need them. But somebody somewhere does. Unfortunately, we too often forget, heroes are humans, just like the rest of us, only graced, or perhaps cursed, with an obsessive drive to fulfill a destiny that will give him nothing but misery in return, only because it’s the right thing to do.

Yes, a human being like Tiger Woods or Chris Henry can, if he is willing to make that sacrifice, be a true hero. Will Tiger turn his life around? If he does it despite losing his fortune and the respect for the image he has crafted, he would be a hero. If he only does it to retain his wealth and status, then he is not a hero, by definition. He will be just another self-serving public figure whom many people will continue to build up, and even worship, while many of us will just as wrongly continue to tear him down, as a punishment for having the temerity to actually be the real Tiger Woods, as opposed to the little god we created in our own self-serving image.

That is what we are.

Achmed The Dead Terrorist

What better Christmas present could we ask for than a prematurely exploding dead terrorist?