The Episcopalian Angel

A recent story reminds me of a girl I once knew, by the name of Claire, who I met one Sunday while attending the Episcopal Chruch in downtown Cincinnati Ohio. This was a few years back, but it is something I will never forget, because it is a perfect illustration of how one slight turn of events, one seemingly minor and insignificant development, can change your life forever.

It has in the meantime got me to thinking about the nature of God. Is there really an all-powerful, all-wise Creator who is one day going to sit in judgement of all our thoughts and deeds, who offers us salvation from a destiny in hell if we only accept the sacrifice of his only begotten son, Jesus Christ? Does all of that, or any fo it, even make any kind of sense?

And if we are all sinners, whether Christians saved solely by grace, or walking in darkness and doomed to eternal damnation-who are we to judge anyone else?

A rupture has occurred within the rank of the American Episcopal Church, as seven Virginia parishes have withdrawn now from the 111 diocese, 27 million member organization. This has been brewing for some time, beginning with the ordination of women that culminated eventually in the appointment of Bishop Katherine Schori as the Presiding U.S. Bishop.

But the cross that proved too great to bear was the decision last year to appoint as Bishop of New Hampshire an openly gay man, V. Gene Robinson, a man who at that point in time still had a male live-in lover.

I did a post on this subject last year, in fact, one entitled Primate Rules , which elicited an interesting response from a reader who seems to have a vested interest in the subject. Accordding to The Country Parson:

The Country Parson said...

In the Episcopal Church it had been an unstated assumption that homosexuality (or homosexual behavior)was a sin just as nearly everyone assumed it was except maybe people who were gay. It is only in the last 30 years that other people have thought differently. If your statement,"Anglican Church doctrine explicitly states that homosexuality is a violation of scripture" refers to the Lambeth resolution from 1998 that stated was "homosexuality was incompatible with scripture" that would be a mistake. Resolutions from the Lambeth Conference or the General Convention are non-binding. They may contribute to our understanding of the doctrine of the Church, but they do not make doctrine.

Be that as it may, as it was pointed out to me by Fondfire, there can be no doubt what the offical position is of the Bible as regards to homosexuality. The words of the Apostle Paul in Romans I:24-28, and again in I Corinthians 6:9-10, homosexuality is indeed an unnatural sin, in fact one that is so degrading that it was considered that God had become so disgusted with such an individual he had given that person over to unnatural lusts.

In other words, a homosexual is, according to the Bible, cursed by God. Or, as it is put even more succinctly in the Old Testament, it is an "abomination" for two men to lie with each other as a man lies with a woman. And it would probably amount to an unnecessary splitting of hairs to point out that lesbianism is not here referred to, as I have this strange feeling the Biblical authors would consider that equally ahorrent.

Even those who point out, correctly as it happens, that the passages attributed to Paul were a reference to the vile and corrupt Roman Emperor Nero and his imperial court, miss the mark altogether. Note that Paul points out this aspect of Nero's character not as a way of saying, "oh, by the way, he happens to be a homosexual", but as a means of pointing out that Nero was so depraved, this was tantamount to proof that he had sank to as low a depth as a human being could possibly decend to, and had infected the culture of the imperial court as well.

He wasn't saying, in other words, that it is alright to be a homosexual as long as you don't steal, blaspheme, murder, and commit torture and rape, etc. What he was pointing out-and this is a remarkable thing when you stop to think about it-is that a lifetime of crimes and sin ultimately lead to this, the most degrading possible proof of loss of ones soul.

It is only natural, therefore, to expect some of the more conservative, traditional Episcoplaians to be virulently oppossed to these latest developments. Lemuel, from Hillbilly White Trash, probably sums up the attitude of most of these traditional Episcopalians, and traditional conservative Christians in general, when he pointed out on his blog:

And as for the homosexuals who will be made to feel warm and loved and accepted and affirmed in the new Christless Episcopal "Church"? Those warm fuzzies will not help them in hell - which they will go to not because they are gay, but because they reject the Lord that IS in favor of a fantasy god who doesn't say anything that makes them feel uncomfortable.

This is very telling. Note that Christians do not judge homosexuals to be hell-bound for what they are, but for what they refuse to turn away from, and for deeming it necessary to assert that God is okay with it. It is the refusal to repent, while still insisting they should be welcome in the Christian Churches, that will send them to hell, according to conservative beliefs. And, if you want to be precise, according to the Bible itself.

The whole thing is bizzarre. Why should gay people care? Why don't they become some other religion, one where they are welcome. For example, there are a good many Wiccan and Pagan sects that view homosexuality as natural to the person. Admittedly, there are a good many who view it as unnatural, but still, there is no set overriding law among Wiccan or Pagan sects that specify it one way or another. It is up to the individual cult or coven.

There are many, if not most, who will accept the homosexual within their circles, so long as they don't enter the doors with a dick in their mouths or up their asses. And in a few rare cases, this might be acceptable as well.

The answer to this, of course, is that they are not Wiccans, they are Christians, just technically not very good ones. But then again, who are? Christianity is rife with people that pick and choose what parts of the Bible are valid and to be followed strictly, and what parts just don't apply to the present age-or to them. More importantly, they have a very keen eye towards those parts of the Bible that seem to justify their own sins, which are just too much for them to overcome. After all, why else would God send his only beloved son to die on the cross, if it were that easy to turn away from the sins of adultery, lust, greed, drunkenness, pride, anger, etc. All those things are moral failings that have to be struggled with. So, if you give in to them, will you not be forgiven?

As long as you try to be a good person, and perfom charitable works, and help your neighbor when he needs aid, won't God understand if you fuck his wife? After all, it's as much his fault as yours, for not satisfying her needs. If not for you, she might leave him, or fall in with somebody who might break up the family eventually. Hell, all you want to do is hit that ass every now and then. Shit, you gave them some money when they were in a tight spot, you got him a job when he was unemployed. Hell, she's just showing her gratitude, it's only natural, and you have your needs as well, you're only human-

And damn but is that ever some FINE FUCKING PUSSY!!!

Bear in mind, I'm not judging one way or another. I don't believe in hell, in the traditional meaning of the word. I don't discount it totally, though. If the conservative Christians are right after all, I will probably be there one day. If that is the case, I have no doubt I am going to see plenty of homosexuals, bothChristians and non-Christians, and they are pretty much going to be in the same boat.

I guess that is the hold after all, this fear of hell, a fear that drives people to want to remain in a religion where thy aren't really welcome, and then all but beg God to accept them as they are, knowing full well, deep down, that they don't really belong, and never will.

Well, I've got some good news for them in a sense, minor though it is. In fact, it might actually come down to-well, not cold comfort, just a slight bit of consolation.

They are going to be finding themselves in the company of a good many of their fellow Christians in the after life.

Unless, that is, they actually do repent and "sin no more". And, if they do fall from time to time, beg forgiveness and determine to never do it again. If you fall, I guess God will pick you up and dust you off. After so long,of course, he might pick you up and throw you away, like he did Nero.

After all, if there really is an all-powerful, all-wise creator God, I guess he certainly knows our hearts.

Which brings me back tothe subject of an angel I once met.

Actually, I came close to joining the Episcopal Chruch in downtown Cincinnati Ohio once a few years back, but work obligations ended that. I miss that place still, I liked the ritual, I enjoyed the fellowship, and the people were by and large open, gracous, and welcoming. I really enjoyed it, and came within a hair of becomming a regular attendee, and possibly a member. Had that occurred,the chances are I might be a devout Episcopalian to this day.

Of course, this was all due to the fact that, my first day there, I became greatly attracted to this chick by the name of Claire, one of those lust-disquised-as-love-at-first-site kind of deals, augmented by the fact that she had the voice of an angel, and made damn sure I heard it as she belted out a hymn at the back of my head from behind me.

I was introduced to her on another occassion, during the course of a festival that the church was conducting, and when I shook hands with her,the electricity was intense. I could actually feel it surging through me. But in no time flat, I soon began having to work weekends. I stopped attendance, and never saw her again.

The moral of the story-there is no God. There can't be.

Epic Poetry By The Bearded Lady

Homer was always seen as male by the ancient Greeks, you would think they would know, right? Nevertheless, that is not to hinder author Andrew Dalby, who has written "Rediscovering Homer:Inside The Origins Of The Epic" , in which he muses that Homer may have been a woman.

Please don't misunderstand, it is not that I find this theory distasteful, or innappropriate, or even silly. It's just that I consider it in all likelihood to be wrong. Bards and poets throughout the ages have traditionally been male, and I find it unlikely that Homer was an exception.

In fact, the more likely truth is, Homer was not a man, in fact, he was a whole bunch of men that continued the oral tradition of "The Illiad"-or originally, it has been claimed "The Wrath of Achilles", for a number of centuries before it was finally written down in it's current form. During this time it undoubtedly went through some revisions, and most certainly expansions.

Yet, the author claims that the epic seems to have been written from a female point of view, and further points out the importance of the numerous goddesses, most especially Athene, and their influence.

This theory points out the problem in viewing ancient literature from a twentieth century perspective. In the current age, and going back to now some seventeen hundred years, more or less, not many are used to looking through the lens of that long ago world where the veneration of multiple deities included a good many of the female gender. In the ancient world, it was the norm, so of course the goddesses would play an important role. They were worshipped by men as well as women.

In fact, during the time of the Classical Greek civilization, the cult of Athene was presided over by a male priesthood. And so, though he was not a priest (the Homer who wrote the Illiad, at least, seems to have viewed preists with some degree of disdain), it is certainly no stretch to imagine that Homer would have venerated her as well, in fact, he seems to have been a devotee of this particular goddess.

Another point made by the author is the time spent on matters and hearth and home, most especially in "The Odyssey".

But again, it bears mentioning that epic poets, many of whom were mentors and tutors to young aristocratic heirs, would have spent far more time in these types of environments than they would have on foreign battlefields, though their presence here can certainly not be discounted either. But they would have certainly exhibited an unusual degree of knowledge of and respect for the household lives of upper class women.

By the same token, it is easy to view the inclusion in these epics of female deities as indicative of a degree of high esteem, until you look a bit closer, at the cast of characters. It is a veritable who's who of cranky, meddlesome, conniving, backstabbing, female stereotypes.

Eris-What can you say? She started this whole mess, all because of a snub. She wasn't invited to a wedding, for the reason that, yes, she was an insatiable troublemaker. And she proved this, taking vengeance by playing off the petty jealousies of three other goddesses.

Aphrodite-The crying, whining, capricous, spoiled rotten goddess of love.

Dionne-Aphrodites mother, evidently invented just for this epic, as one of Zeus's illicit lovers, probably a construct to explain why Zeus couldn't have Aphrodite all to himself and thus avert this mess that she initiated following Eris's little tantrum with the apple of discord.

In a departure from traditional mythology, Aphrodite here is portrayed as his daughter. Nevermind that he had engaged in sexual relations with one sister, Demeter, and married yet another. And here I am referring to-

Hera-Zeus's jealous, vengeful wife, who actually comes across somewhat reasonably in the epic. Yet, so determined is she to disobey her husband's wishes to remain neutral in the Trojan War, she uses the wiles of yet another goddess to put him to sleep so she can work feverishly on the side of the Achaeans. She is portrayed as being too weak to stand up to him directly, but thanks to this subterfuge, the all-powerful Father of Gods and Men sleeps probably half-way through the epic.

Artemis-yes, indeed, dear, sweet, wild and free Artmeis, as pure as the virgin forrest. Better not piss her off, though, or she might force you, as she did the Achaean King Agammemnon,to sacrifice your first born daughter to her. Yes, I know that some several centuries later some Greek dramatist decided she had secretly whisked her away in the middle of the sacrifice.

The implication here can be made that, in order for this trick to work, unbeknownst to the mortal participants, the only manner of sacrifice this could have been would have been by way of immolation. Poor Iphigenia was burned alive.


Note, at any rate, Homer made no mention of this change of heart on the part of Artemis. Nor, in fact, do any of the deities in the epic look very good. They are to one degree or another, willful, arrogant, bloodthirsty, deceptive, and self-serving.

Only Athene by and large stands out as being of pure motivation, almost beyond reproach, even though she as well fell into Eris's trap by becomming embroiled in the dispute over the apple of discord. Nevertheless, it was Athene who patriotically encouraged the wayward Achilles to "support the troops" when he decided due to a slight by Agamemnon not to engage in the Trojan war. The slight? Agamemnon had taken for his own a war trophy previously claimed by Achilles-a Trojan woman he had claimed as his personal concubine.

Those damned women, nothing but trouble, huh?

Homers implicit advice to women seems well founded. Like the patient, long-sufferring Penelope, the faithful wife of Odyesseus in "The Oddyssey", they should be loyal, supportive of any necessary war effort, skillful and wise in the ways of diplomacy. Otherwise, they should stay home, until they are married they should remain virgins. Once married, they should remain faithful beyond all reasonable human expectations.

As Tammy Wynnette would croon some tweny centuries later, "Stand by your man". Even if, in this case, he hasn't been around for twenty years and you have no rational reason to believe he is still alive.

Oh, and don't forget to learn how to cook and sew. What kind of woman would neglect such sacred duties as that? Hell, to Homers favorite goddess, that was her favorite pastime, when she wasn't busy kicking Ares' ass down first one side of the street and another. Those two, by the way, remind me of Elly May Clampett and Jethro Bodine of Beverly Hillbillies fame.

True, Elly May was a bit more like Artemis, and Ares was nowhere near as goofy and lovable as Jethro, but it was pretty much the same schtick. In either case, the big, strapping, strong rough as a cob hick says or does something stupid, and you just know a good ass kicking is a'comin' his way.

But it would be unwise to judge Ares too harshly, or Jethro for that matter. All men, no matter how seemingly wise, will fall for that Helen of Troy type of trash anyday. Sure, it might be a bit extreme to think that a major, for it's day, world war might be started over a case of divinely inspired infidelity.

Ah, but after all, remember, Helen was herself part divine.

Thanks to Jason at The Wild Hunt Blog.

Foreign Entanglements, Factions, And The Bullshit They Inspire

Ever since we started ignoring the advice of our first and arguably greatest president, Washington, who warned us against both foreign entanglements and against factions-political parties- the United States on all fronts has turned into some kind of cruelly vicous parody of itself. It’s not a comedy of errors, but a farce of excesses.

The right-and I don’t just mean the “Far Right”, but the Right in general-has taken to upholding and excusing the reign of the totalitarian thug Augusto Pinochet. He is not the first example, of course, prior to that, they lauded such luminaries of dictatorship as the Shah of Iran, and, yes, even Saddam Hussein. And this is just the beginning.

In Saddams case, this lead to the first Gulf War, and the subsequent massacres of Kurds and Shi’ites, with the aid of an arsenal that in all probability to at least a degree contained the marking “Made In America”.

The Left, for it’s part, isn’t much better, if at all. Though they are careful these days to avoid any appearrance of supporting such communist dictators as Castro, or Kim Jung Il, they do betray the remarkable appearrance of being far more open to negotiation with people of this stripe than they do for example-well, Pinochet, whom they almost universally deplore. In the meantime, they strive to maintain the illussion that in supporting the rights of Muslim radicals to fly on planes without being in the least bit distressed-as oppossed to, for example, all the rest of us-they are actually looking out for all of our “rights”.

As for our allies, for example Europe, it is equaly bizzarre. The Left seems to see no problem with the current situation in Europe. The fact that their economy is shit, and that they have a Muslim problem that they have brought on themselves, is seen as a minor problem that can be easily remedied with jobs and education and greater access to opportunity, which of course for the most part the majority of the immigrant population has avoided, opting instead to draw cash benefits-i.e., welfare, which their immams advise them to look at as a kind of a jizra, and dhimmitude- and otherwise discouraging integration into the overall European population.

Still, the Left wishes that we would adopt a more European model, in at least some respects.

As for the Right,they would like to see the entire European social safety net discarded, and would obviously like to see the same thing happen to our own, eliminate all regulation, at least on the federal level, and institute a kind of free trade zone worldwide that would amount to what they call “laissez faire” economics.

Feudalism, in other words.

The Right sees Christmas as constantly under assault, and suddenly you get the impression they would have no problem at all if the government were to suddenly regulate the maner in which shoppers are greeted at Wal-Mart. Hey, why would that be such a stretch? They don’t seem to have a problem with the Ten Commandments being posted in schools, or in courthouses, or in public parks, at public expense, which is to say, at taxpayers expense.

They have no problem with the concept of school prayer, of “allowing” prayers to a Judeo-Christian deity, or with reading from the Bible, or for the teaching of Creationism under the guise of science. How the hell is it such a stretch to imagine a Wal-Mart greeter might one day be fined for saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”?

By the same token, the Left wants to totally deny there is a problem, when there obviously is one. Come on, when it gets to the point in time that the ACLU is going around the country suing to force the removal of Christmas trees from public parks, or for the removal of the words “Christmas” from school calendars, and the banning of even non religion specific prayers at general school assemblies, there is a fucking problem

So, you want to prove to me there’s no problem? Fine. This season, and also at least once once during the next election, I want to hear every fucking Democratic politican say “Merry Christmas”. I don’t want them to add another fucking thing to it, or explain it or apologize for it afterward, and I don’t want to hear a fucking compaint about it from any motherfucker. Then, maybe I’ll believe there’s not a problem.

I also want to see manger scenes in public squares, provided they are temporary and erected and maintained at private expense. I want to go to my local school and see a fucking Christmas play and I want to hear Christmas carols sung during the motherfucker. I want to hear about this happenning all over the country, again, without one word of complaint from any motherfucker.

Well, unless it’s a shitty performance, but that’s a different matter.

AND LEAVE THE GODDAMNED MOTHERUFCKING CHRISTMAS TREES ALONE!!!!!FUCKING SCUM!!!!!!

You want to see the Left defend Christmas or any kind of Christmas symbol? Fine, here’s what you do. Hire a fucking male homosexual pedophile to play Santa Clause at a department store, and the minute he inevitably diddles some little boys pecker, I promise you the ACLU will be all aboard defending the bastard.

Otherwise, forget it. They will be too busy insuring the rights of Muslims to cram the Qu’ran down our throats to worry about a little thing like some kids rights to put on Christmas pageants in school.

All of these problems, and more, are the direct result of Washingtons advice going unheeded. And what was this advice? It came in two parts.

One, avoid foreign entanglements.

Two, avoid political factions.

The first problem is easily remedied. You simpy declare null and void any treaty with any nation that has deviated from it’s signatory obligations in any way, shape, or form, in the slightest way. From there, you return to a policy of bi-lateral trade and diplomacy.

Sure, it would be hard, sure it would be an adjustment, but the long term consequences are going to, I promise you, be a hell of a lot worse.

The second is not so easily remedied. The first amendment probably precludes outlawing all political parties, which is very, very, very unfortunate. The only other option would be to criminally charge and imprison any politican or organization that tells even the slightest provable lie during the course of a campaign.

The next step is even more unikely, and that is, outlaw all political contributions and political campaigns. You do this simply by having all candidates for office put out a comprehensive set of positon papers which would be availiable to all who want to read them. Maybe a publicly funded series of speeches and a nationally televised debate, or two, or three, and you know all you need to know about these bastards. Anything else they say or do would be, and is, superfluous.

Finaly, enforce the Bill of Rights to a dictatorial degree. Why not? We enforce the thirteenth amendment in that way, don’t we? When is the last time you ever heard of somebody owning a black slave? If somebody tried that, they are going to prison, I promise you, because they are breaking the law as set forth in the thriteenth amendmant to our constitution.

So, if that is the case, if you want to start some crap about denying my right to bear arms, or force your fucking religion down my throat while not allowing me the right to practice mine, or interfere in my rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, why the hell should your skanky ass be walking around free and breathing my fucking air?

I know of course my advice is not going to be heeded. Nobody listened to Washington, why the hell should they listen to me or anybody else that feels the way I do? The answer, is, of course, they will not.

And so, we are doomed. Enjoy the corrupt, pretentous nonsense while it lasts.

Apocalypto Tugs At The Ol' Heart

There have been rumours circulating around the Internet on certain sites that Mel Gibsons movie Apocalypto might in fact have been stolen from another movie, copywrighted in 2003, called "Michtoatl". I have no way as of yet of verifying the veracity of these claims, so other than making note of them here, I will for the time being ignore them.

As for the movie itself, "Apocalypto" is a film that can't be ignored. It may be one of the, if not THE, movie event of the year. There has been so much buzz and controversy concerning it, I thought I should say that, if you do go to see it, be warned. It is by all accounts extremely bloody and violent. I have not seen it, but for what I have to say, that is not a requirement. This is not a review of the film as such, so much as it is a review of the reviews.

And of the Maya-

Sometime roughly between the time of the discovery of fire, and the invention of the wheel, human beings migrated, in uncertain numbers, into the Western Hemisphere, more than likely from northern Asia by way of the then frozen Bering Strait. Nobody seems to have a clue as to why, though it would seem likely to me some kind of environmental upheaval to be the most likely culprit. It does take an act of desperation, after all, to move massive amounts of people thousands of miles over frozen ice, and land.

Eventually, though, they made it to first North America, and from there, presumably, some of them made it to Mexico, and beyond.

Some of them carved out impressive civilizations. The first of these known were the Olmecs. The Maya followed. They were superseded by the Toltecs, and finally the Aztecs. There were others as well, though the Incas, of Peru, seem to have been pretty much isolated from the other more advanced Meso-American civilizations.

Thy seem to have been amazingly advanced in some respects, insofar as architecture, mathematics, arts, scultpture, and to a degree even poetry and written languages. The Maya, specifically, developed a calendar system that seems to have been based on the period of time from the first missed menstrual period of a pregnant woman, until the birth of the child. The end of the next period of the Mayan calendar, which has been the object of some speculation, is to come on Decmeber 21^st, 2012.

Yet, this seems to not have anything to do with the winter solstice, which in this year transpires on the following day, but is simply the end of a long count, the thirteenth cycle of the Mayan calendar. It is supposed to usher in the end of the old world, and a new beginning.

Despite the fact that they had cities that were seemingly unimagined by their North American distant relatives, they were as bloody and violent a lot as you can imagine, and a look at Meso-American civilizations might well be a mirror of not just that culture, but a fairly accurrate portrayal of human beings before the dawn of recorded history.

Despite their advances, and even despite their obsessive observations of the sun and moon, the concept of the wheel totally escaped the grasp of their limited imaginations. Because of this, as well as due to a lack of the most rudimentary of implemets, such as the pulley, great architectural undertakings necessitated the use of massive amounts of the population pressed into gruelling, backbreaking hours of labor.

Naturally, this would require conquest of neighboring peoples, as no civilian population would long put up with this from their own rulers. Nor would the conquered people, for long, unless a serious impression was made. To this end, the Maya, as well as the other great Meso-American civilizations, conducted human sacrifice on a most grissly, barbaric scale.

In his movie about the final days of the Mayan Empire, Mel Gibson certainly got that right. In fact, despite the numerous protests that I‘ve read about the excesive blood-letting in this film, he may have barely touched the surface as to how blood-thirsty the Maya were. But that is not unusual. From the earliest days of Meso-American studies, anthropologists and archaeologists were so impressed with the high degree of advancements evidenced by what remained of the Mayan architecture, they came to the erroneous conclusion that they were a very peaceful, even serene people, at least in comparison to the unmistakably sanguinary Aztecs.

When the truth began to emerge, it was met with denial, and caution was advised in interpreting the painted scenes uncovered of massive bloodletting and sacrifices. But the more evidence that emerged into the light of day, the more it became obvious that this was a people unique in it’s savagery and cruelty.

Where Gibson got it wrong, in my opinion, was in assumming that the violence witnessed during the last days of the Mayan Empire was a result of some kind of corruption that had permeated society. In fact, from what I have seen, the more accurrate explanation was that the society in fact never evolved beyond it’s beginnings in this regard. There was a continuity, in fact, that speaks more of cultural stagnation. The "corruption" had always been there. To the Maya,though, it was the natural order of things, and always had been.

I will however jump to Gibsons defense in one regard. He has been critiized for not focusing on the very real cultural achievements of the Maya, in terms of what I have mentioned as regards the archietecture, science, mathematics, astronomy, and their amazingly accurrate calendar system.

The first point I will make in response to this is to note that this movie is actually portrayed as seen through the eyes of a man, Jaquar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) who is the member of a small subordinate village that is suppossed to have existed somewhere apparrently on the outer fringes of the Mayan Empire. To someone such as that, beaten and hauled into the midst of a giant city in order to be a part of a massive human sacrifice, the first and last thing of note that would command his attention would have been the hugely magnificent pyramid that stood in the center of the city.

The next thing he would take note of would be the human heads that would then come bounding down the steps of the pyramid, bouncing like a grotesque, bloody ball, as the deranged populace gleefully rushed to the foot of the steps and cried out for more.

He may have been somewhat amazed, as well as sickened, at the site of the High Priest extracting a still beating heart from the chest of another sacrificial victim, holding it up for the crowd to survey, before his head as well was sent careening down the steps of the pyramid.

He would have wondered when his time would come, as he dreaded the agony and the pain, heartsick at the thought of never seeing the wife and child he had hidden away, ever again.

Even if he had noticed one, he would not have asked,“So, how does this calendar thing work?”

Another point that should be made, which seems to escape most reviewers-or for that matter most students of Mayan history-is that the average Mayan was not well versed on these matters. They lived in the culture, were surrounded by it, and so of course influenced by it. But the average Mayan man or woman would have had about as much depth of knowledge concerning architecture and mathematics, etc., as I would have about nuclear physics.

The Maya did have compulsory education from about the age of fourteen, or at least did at some point in their history, but for the most part this was limited to languages and poetry and military matters, for the boys, and household duties and religious matters for the girls. A relatively few proved good candidates for specialized education in the higher arts and sciences, but they were in the minority. Therefore, the highly advanced Mayan culture would not have been focused in the life of the average Mayan, who probably never gave the pyramids a second look or thought. They were just there, much like in the movie.

Another criticism of the work has been that the human sacrifices that are portrayed are not presented “in context”.

In context? What fucking context? Please! Massive human sacrifices can only be seen in one context, and that is, it is a barbaric act of subjugation of a population and/or propitiation of some malignant deity. That is the fucking context. Stop trying to avoid offending the Maya. They aren’t around any more as an empire, they aren’t going to get us. What few remote jungle tribes of them that are still around aren’t going to like you or give a shit one way or another if you defend them. And most other South American Indians and North American Indians-or “Native Americans” if you prefer-don’t really give a shit either, though a relatively few of them might pretend they do. That’s probably because they are looking forward to the day they might have your head on a pike. But I digress.

It’s been said that Mel Gibson intended this film as a parable of how corruption in a society will always inevitaly lead to it’s downfall, and that he has drawn a parallel to the Mayan leaders hold on their native populations, and how they manipulated them by focusing their attention on the entertainment value of lopped off heads and yanked out hearts, to our current American society, and how we have been manipulated by our own leaders. How we are encouraged to continue to live our life of abundant hedonism and place our trust in the government for our safey and security, in the meantime throwing our rights and responsibilities to future generations away.

At the movies end, a number of Spanish conquistadors and missionaries are seen approaching the shore, and we know the end is near for the Maya. As they were of course Catholic, as is Mel Gibson, what I can’t help but wonder is, is this a threat or a promise?

Whaever the case, Gibsons point about societal corruption is well noted. I just wish he could have gotten the point across that this civilization was always corrupt, that despite it’s obvious advances, it was a brutal, barbaric society of people who were always ruled by their superstions and manipulated by their rulers. That this was as true of the beginning days of their empire as it was in the latter days of it.

When you stop to think about it, they were more like us than we might care to admit.

Free Tarot Reading Site-A Great One From Llewellyn

Click on the post title for the link to Llewellyns Free Tarot Reading Site. I don't promote sites like this very often, so you should know that, if tarot is your thing, this is definitely the site for you.

If you are into tarot, you can spend all day on this site and never get tired of it. Just pick out whatever tarot deck you prefer, and have at it. Unfortunately, the Ryder-Waite deck is not included, nor is my personal favorite, the Mythic Tarot, which is the deck I learned on. However, the Golden Dawn deck is included. Moreover, Llewellyns own deck is quite beautiful.

Even if you ae not familiar with the tarot, each card that appears in a spread here is explained in great detail, so much so that it would actually be a good beginners guide to actually learning the tarot.

Of course, it can’t ever replace a deck that you can actually hold in your hands, and shuffle. At the same time, for what it is, I am pleased with it. After you pick the deck you want to use, go on down and pick the kind of spread you want to use. Then, think of the question you want to ask. Finally, once your mind is fully concentrated on the question, click on the link to get your reading.

The three card spread is the best to start out with, as it gives you Past, Present, and Future of the question in one reading. You might be well amazed at how accurrate the reading is. Afterwards, once you get the hang of it, go on to other more complicated spreads.

You mght find yourself coming back to this site, time and time again. Well, if you have to waste time on the Internet, this is as good a way as any, maybe better than most.

Burndt Offerrings

There may be far more to the recent death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko than meets the eye, which in itself is a strange thing to note in that he died through poisoning by a highly toxic radioactive element known as Polonium-210.

It seems to be a cut and dried enough case, of course. Litvinenko, of late a citizen of Great Britain, the nation to which he was granted exile after a period of incarceration in a Russian prison for "abuse of power" (he allegedly refused to asassinate an enemy of the state), had been in the proces of conducting an investigation into the murder of Russian dissident journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who herself had written investigative articles highly critical of Russian policy in regards to the region of Chechnya.

Got all that? Well, here's where it really gets confusing. Seems as though Mr. Litvinienko was himself a Chechen sympathizer. In fact, on his deathbed, he converted to Islam.

He had expressed the wish to do so to his father, and evidently somewhere along the path of his final few days, he followed through on his desires. Unfortunaely, so contaminated with radiation by the time of his funeral were his remains, he was not allowed a Muslim funeral, due to safety concerns.

Atlas Shrugs has written and linked to a number of theories about the murder-or assassination-and even postulated that it might have been a suicide on the part of Litvinenko, who may have desired to be a martyr, which among the Chechen rebels and some other Muslims, is actually now what he is seen as.

What strikes me as interesting is that this man might well be legitimately viewed as a traitor of the worse, most heinous variety, given some of the actions of the Chechen rebels, such as, for example, the assault on a school in Beslan, in Southern Russia, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, more than half of them school children. In fact, the Chechen rebels are said to be allied to some degree with Al-Queda.

Even given the long history of the region and it's legitimate grievances against Russia, this alone raises questions as to the degree of culpability he might share in giving aid and comfort to these terrorist factions, the justification in his assassination by figures known or unknown within the Russian government, or even if his death might have been the accidental result of his own nefarious actions, and associations.

Still, there can be no doubt that the degree of poisoning exhibited not only on him, but amongst his close associates, poses grave cause for concern. It seems like everywhere Litvinenko turned up in those final few hours, Polonium-210 was sure to follow.

Of course, that is in itself not that amazing, considering that it can be ordered legally on-line, in suppossedly safe and shielded amounts available to university research laboratories. Such a site can be seen here, and is so bizarre, it almost reads like a satire.

This still leaves open the question as to how he absorbed such a deadly material in such significant amounts. If it was indeed an assassination, I would advise a return to his home and a perusal of his liquor cabinet, or possibly his after shave.

Or, if he was a smoker, they might possibly want to check his tobacco supply, in that it seems as though Polonium-210 is to be found naturally in tobacco due to it's presence in certain phosphate fertilizers used for the product.

Unfortunately, you won't find that fact bandied about too much by either the tobacco companies, or by anti-smoking zealots. After all, the tobacco companies don't want any more lawsuits, nor do they wish to have to undergo the relatively expensive process of insuring removal of the radiation. The anti-smoking forces as well do not want to call attention to this development, as it would suddenly give merit to the effort to finally produce a safe cigarrette.

This would be the last thing they want, and why they will fight tooth and nail to prevent revelation of the fact that tobacco smoking has been seen as a preventive, and potentially a cure, for Parkinsons Disease.

As such, the last thing the anti-moking forces would want is something that might in the long run derail their gravy train-speaking of which,from their perspective, the only thing worse right now would be for the discovery of Polonium-210 in trans-fats.

And to think, all this time we've been blaming the tobacco problem on some curse by American Indians.

Well, it certainly explains why that tobacco goddess I once thought I was going to attune with turned out to be a troll.

The Schizophrenic Blogger

I’m seriously thinking of changing the name of this blog to “The Schizoid Blog”, because I am sure that’s what I probably come across as, and is probably why my readership has stayed pretty flat over the last few weeks.

The very uncomfortable fact that I’m confronted with is, out of the fifty five million plus blogs that are out there, most of them are exercises in one degree or another of self-indulgence, self-importance, self-righteousness, self-promotion, and/or self aggrandizement. While I may from time to time fall into another one or more of these categories, the worse thing about my blog is, the lack of consistency as pertaining to the issues of the day.

And that’s where this blog falls apart. Most people that read blogs are, after all, looking for something that merely offers a degree of affirmation as to their own cherished beliefs and prejudices. If somebody sticks with my blog long enough, they quickly discern that I am all over the map.

One day, I might be as far to the right as Michael Savage, the next day as far to the left as Michael Moore. Many days I will be somewhere in the middle. On any given day, I am likely to seemingly change my mind as easily as Laura Bush changes her wardrobe.

I like to think of myself as independent, but at the same time I am fairly sure that I will never win a Bloggy Award, or a Weblog Award, for all these reasons, and for others. For example, the blog name and description might be off putting to some.

Also, the fact that I will not put ads on my blog I am quite certain has more than a little to do with it. And I absolutely refuse to jump on the YouTube bandwagon.

All I have to offer is, hopefully, in addition to independence of thought, a little bit in the way of originality. That of course is a problem in it’s own right. At times, I spend more time trying to find something original to blog about than I do actually blogging about them when I find them.

It’s all quite depressing. Of course, it might just be a phase I’m going through. Like puberty, or male menopause. Or, come ot think about it, blogging.

The Ruthless Patriot

Preface-the following article here has come about due to an article I read recently in the BBC. The story is concerning a documentary, by Shane O'Sullivan, that claims to have uncovered evidence of CIA complicity in the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Allegedly, there were three CIA agents present at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the assassination, agents who had no legitimate reason to be there, and in fact were suppossed to be in Asia at the time. They and their four "accomplices" are noted in the film in question, which has evidently already been broadcast on the BBC, though as of yet there is no true substantiation of the identities of the people in question.

This article, which I discovered on a link on Truthout, you can read for yourself. I find it notewrothy that, aside from Truthout, there has been no buzz about it here in the states, despite the recent release of a film, "Bobby", which concerns itself with the events of the night of the assassination as seen through various fictionalized characters at the Ambassador Hotel.

My own opinion of Kennedy is that he was a driven man, to the point of obsession. I don't think he was a good man, to be blunt. In fact, I think he was consumed by his own narrow views of right and justice, and at the same time, he was a manipulative, cunning, and, yes, ruthless povocateur, aggressive, maybe even unhinged. He was dangerous, not only to those enemies who may have deserved his wrath, but to the world.

My reasoning is as follows below. Of course, you can make up your own mind. But, as a very wise man named Maddox once said-"if you do not agree with me, well, you are just wrong".

Pictured above-Robert Kennedy, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthey, and an unknown man.

Many of Robert Kennedy's admirers would prefer to skip over the beginning of his career in public service, when he served as legal council to the now largely discredited Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. During the height of the notorious Red Scare Kennedy rose to this position due to the influence of his father, former British Ambasador Joseph Kennedy. It was a period when many people were threatened with the loss and ruination of their careers and reputations, and Kennedy, himself an ardent anti-Communist, was a zealous advocate of Mccarthy at this time. When it turned out that many if not most of McCarthy's allegations were unfounded, that Mccarthy had actually fabricated or exaggerrated many of his charges, and even inferred a far greater number than actually existed, he was finished.

After the fall of McCarthy, Kennedy went on to assist in the organized crime hearings alongside his brother, future President and then Massachusetts Senator John Kennedy, in which Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa became a major target of Kennedy. The two would become hated enemies from that moment on.

When John became President in 1960, his father persuaded him to name Robert as his Attorney General. Kennedy proved to be arguably the greatest AG of all time, at least on the surface. Despite the fact that his father was said to have Mafia connections, and that these ties proved invaluable to his sons winning of the Presidency, especially due to the influence of the Chicago Outfit on the Chicago Dailey/Democratic machine, Robert made his number one priority of the time, the eradication of Organized Crime.

To this end, he engaged in many questionable acts, and even outright illegal ones. For example, he once abducted New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, and illegally transported him to South America, giving him no time to call his lawyer or even his family, or even to pack, and with only what money he had in his wallet at the time. Marcello had arrived here as an infant and had never become a naturalized citizen. Still, Kennedys actions were without a doubt illegal.

Marcello made it back, eventually, and Kennedy went after him again, as he did other Mafia figures, even Sam Giancarlo, the Chicago Mafia don who had in effect made his brother President.

Kenndy was obsessed, with a clarity of perception that made him distinquish right from wrong with laser intensity. There was no grey area, and so when he was turned to for advice in his brothers moments of greatest adversity, he assummed a kind of power and influence that amounted to far more than would ordinarily be embodied in the head of one mere cabinet agency.

At no time was this more true than in the matter of the Cuban controversies, first with the Bay of Pigs, and afterwards with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was Robert to whom John turned to more than any other advisior, civilian or mlitary. His advice, especially on the Cuban Missile Crisis, was well heeded.

Cooler heads prevailed, which is ironic, as Robert Kennedy was nothing if not an egotistical, temperamental hothead. After all, if John had listened to Roberts advice, due to the latters disdain for Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy would not have picked Johnson as his running mate, and so would have lost the entire South, and thus the election-Mafia assistance notwithstanding.

But Kennedy had been instrumental in the on-going efforts of the CIA to eliminate Castro, which lead to several failed assassination attempts of what was, after all, a head of state. This seems to have been on-going since the days of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, during which President Kennedy, having okayed the amphibious assault of some Cuban exiles under covert CIA leadership, then denied the vital air support needed to insure the success of the mission. Many of the exiles were killed,many more ended up in Cuban prisons. Before November 22nd in Dallas, Texas, it was the darkest period of the Kennedy presidency.

It would be easy to note that Robert Kenedy would have likely advised his brother as to the potential illegality of the mission. Still, ever the ardent anti-communist, he would have been eager, and zealous, in his attempts to rid the world of the scourge of Castro. And so he involved himself in this matter as well. Small wonder that, when the Cuban Missile Crisis erupted, Robert Kennedy rendered advice of uncharacteristic moderation.

Then, there was Viet-Nam, and the assassination of the corrupt Diem brothers, a CIA action that is alleged to have also been sanctioned by the Kennedy's-Robert, as well, had a hand in this affair.

Finaly, there is the matter of Marilyn Monroe, whom Bobby had approached out of concern for his brothers extramarital dalliances with, and whom he then himself began an illicit affair with. How this all ended is not exactly clear. But apparrently, after both brothers had ended the relationship, due to the influence of FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover, the Hollywood starlet, considered the greatest sex symbol of her day, became despondent. She seems to have called Kennedy and made some veiled threat to end her life, and to leave something behind that would insure the whole story got out.

Alarmed, Kennedy and some agents made it to Hollywood, where they found Miss Monroe dead from what was actually meant to be a half hearted cry for help that went way too far. Whatever incriminating evidence she had left behind, if there really was any, was removed, including any trace of Kennedy's presence. It is a mystery that has lanquished to this day and still is the fodder for conspircacy theories and acussations of murder on the part of Kennedy, accussations that are understandable, though certainly unprovable.

His actions even on the day of his brothers assassination give just cause for suspicion. In an effort to hide the fact that his brother had sufferred from Addisson's Disease, it has been alleged that Robert Kennedy had covertly confiscated the remains of his brothers brain tissue, which had been collected in pieces after the assassination. He then evidently had the remains destroyed.

Incredibly, he decided to run for President in 1968, on an anti-war ticket, in oppossition to the very war that he himself had advocated, and been among the strongest supporters of during his brrthers Presidency-the Vietnam war.

In order to do this, he first ran for the United States Senate from the state of New York, in 1966, and won. He began his campaign for the Presidency almost immediately, as possibly the first carpetbagger Senator since the days of Reconstruction. The first anti-war candidate, Eugene Mccarthey, had polled enough votes in the New Hampshire primary against incumbent Predident Johnson-Kennedys despised foe-that Johnson himself announced he would not seek re-election in 1968.

Kennedy then set about derailing Mccarthy, and hi-jacked his position as the major opponent of a war that had turned into the greatest fiasco the country had yet gone through. The war Kennedy himself was initially to a great degree responsible for.

Kennedy was now the advocate of peace. He was also the proponent now of civil rights, a mantle he had some rightful claim to, having as Attorney General enforced the courts desegregation orders, though at the same time he had, at the behest of Herbet Hoover, conducted illegal surveillance on Martin Luther King, on the grounds of communist subversive influences.

He probably- had he not been assassinated following the California primary in a pantry of the Ambassador Hotel after his victory speech-would have gone on to win the Democratic nomination that year. He would not have won the Presidency.

For one thing, he knew where all the bodies were buried. Unfortunately, so did a lot of other people, and he was the one who had done most of the digging.

For another thing, George Wallace as it was had won five Southern States as the result of Southern Democratic anger at the national Democratic Party, an anger which smoulders to this day. Had Bobby Kennedy been nominated as oppossed to former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Wallace would probably have won more like six or seven, maybe more. He still would not have won, or even come close. But those extra votes would have come from Democrats, not from Nixon, who would have won by a greater margin than he did against Huphrey.

Nixon's margin of victory against Huprheye was close, maybe less than one percent of the popular vote. Against Kennedy, it would not have been close.

So the question is, why would the CIA have involved itself in an assassination attempt against Robert Kennedy? Was he a danger to them, at all? Would it more than likely have been some other enemy, out for revenge? Marcello, for example, or Giancarlo?

Or perhaps a vengeful memberof the Cuban exile community. Like, for example, Desi Arnaz? I am not being facetous here. The man ultimately convicted of asassinating Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan, worked on a horse farm owned by Arnaz, who was an ardent opponent of the Castro regime, and a supporter of the Cuban exiles, though he himself had actually left Cuba during the reign of Batista.

When you have enemies, many times you have bullets to show for it. Kennedy had enemies, so draw your own conclusions.

He was a very mercurial man, and in many ways, is the father of the modern Democratic Party. I guess that would explain why so many of their positions over the last few decades have amounted to political suicide.

A Matter Of Grave Cultural Importance

She couldn't be more obvious if she had a finger crammed up in it. But what the hell? Believe it or not, this morning the number one ranking for the Technoratti Search engine was for Britney Spears. As if that weren't enough, the number four ranking was for just "Britney" . Another subject of this post, Lindsay Lohan, was number eight.

Somewhere in the top ten was one or two matters of actual importance. Damned if I remember what they were, though.

For some reason, the photo at top (if it is not also censored by Blogger) was censored from both Google and Yahoo. I was dismayed and disheartened until I remembered fellow Stumbleupon site member AmsterdamBabe. Nothing gets past her, and I figured if she didn't have this photo, no one did. As usual, she did not disappoint me.

Britney Spears made a living by starting out as a living contradiction-a virgin whore. As nothing in the universe, which is in constant motion, remains static, it was obvious where that was going to go. And in her constant motion to mainstream the trailor trash lifestyle, she has inspired a generation of pre-teen girls to assert their own-well, I won't call it sexuality-but since the days that first madonna and then Britney got the ball rolling, I think it's probably headed there.

And since filing for divorce from Kevin Federline, she has taken up a kind of celebrity duet of sluttiness with Paris Hilton, as though to proclaim to the world, "yes I'm an unfit mother, but by God we are human beings too."

Yes, indeed, and with a shaved vagina to boot.

Lindsey Lohan makes up the remainder of the trio of trashiness, as she seems to have succumbed to the spell of the papparzzi lifestyle-and that's a shame. Lohan almost perfectly symbolizes the inevitable and ultimately tragic attraction of youthful inexperience and naivete to a life of wanton abandon.

In Lohans case, she has taken her conflicting need and at the same time loathing of the papparrzzi,and seemingly turned to these two for aid and support, comfort, and the benefit of their seemingly greater expertise and wisdom.

The irony is, Lohan is the only one of the three that is truly talented. It is they who should benefit from her, yet in the process of soaking up her energy, she is going to ened up drained, used up, and ultimately worthless.

This would then be the fate of the girl who belted out a dazling performance in the late Robert Altmans "A Prairie Home Companion", and who at the recent tenth annual Hollywood Film Festival Awards, was honored with the "Breathrough Acting Award".

Ten years from now, one of three things will happen. One, she will break away from this crew (which in a way she seems to want to) and may in time develop her natural talents and abilities, which are formidable, to consistently award winning levels.

Or, she will eventually fall apart, end up going through extended periods of therapy and rehab, and end up just another statistic among many other burnt out and tragic child stars.

Or, she will die young.

Ultimately, it's her decision.

As for Britney Spears, well-just what the hell is this going to amount to in thirty years? Who is going to care about it-shaved or unshaved?

Unfortunately for her, in the long run, she really has no say in that.

And A Cairn By Every Runway

Here are some definitions of a cairn, according to Wikkipedia:

• To mark a burial site, and/or to memorialize the dead.
• To mark the summit of a mountain.
• Placed at regular intervals they indicate a path across stony or barren terrain, across glaciers, or a bad-weather navigation route.

As cairns are somewhat of a feature in many pagan faiths, what could be more appropriate to place beside every runway, into which pagan travellers can meditate beside before embarking on their journeys? Some can even be buildt to allow for entrance of one or more travellers for the purpose of private meditation.

I've even discovered a stone artisan, Dave Cudworth, who might be prevailed upon to build them, in the event a pagan builder can not be found.

Not only are they appropriate for Celtic Pagans, but also for Hellenic Pagans such as myself, who identify them with Hermes, God of Travellers.

After all, since some Muslim activists are now demanding private prayer chambers in airports, surely they would not presume to think they should be afforded this special privilege all to themselves.

Yeah, right. No doubt they will also insist it should be buildt in such a way that those who kneel within should face Mecca. If accedded to, this would probably lead to demands that toilets in all bathroom facilities should face either toward the north or the south (neither toward nor away from Mecca), and most importantly, that a resident Muslim chaplain be installed in all airports to sound the Muslim call to prayer five times a day.

Frankly, I'm past caring even if they insist on a star and crescent be the predominant view above the airport control towers. Just give me my fucking cairn.

I don't agree with Ann Coulter very often, though I almost always think she is hilarious, but when she wrote this particular editorial, it struck me as not only funny, but one hundred percent correct.

As you may recall, a recent controversy erupted when six imams were removed from a flight in Arizona due to complaints by concerned passengers. They had been praying in a loud fashion, in addition to complaining about American foreign policy. Upon entering the plane, they demanded seperate seating, and though none were obese, insisted on seat belt extensions.

At least three of them purchased one way tickets, and had no checked baggage, which ever since 9/11 have been two standard red flags in airport scurity matters. This, in addition to their generally boorish, obnoxous, and provocative manner and actions, seemed almost calculated to insure a reaction, and a confrontation.

Naturally, they have been ardently defended by the so-called Left. Surprise, surprise!

Coulter hit the nail right on the head when she pointed out, in reaction to the Immams call for all Muslims to boycott the airline in question:

"The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe."

Exactly. If the truth were known, one of the first things most Americans at least subconscously take note of when they get on any plane is the presence, or lack thereof, of anyone with even a vaquely Middle Eastern appearrance.

The most insulting thing a Muslim could possibly be confronted with should be the waves of overwhelming relief collectively exhibitd by the majority of airline customers at the news that this boycott would soon take effect. But they just don't seem to get it.

Coulter even wonders if the entire story isn't a fictional advertisng scheme. As she puts it:


"Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways."

Ouch.

And, as she points out, it is not only the immams who have no sense of irony, but their leftist supporters and defenders, many of who are still high from the fumes breathed in from the last Democratic victory, and as such may be sufferring from altered states of conscousness-and perception of reality. But they don't know, or maybe just don't care, that, as Coulter puts it

"But now, on the eve of the busiest travel day in America, these "scholars" have ginned up America's PC victim machinery to intimidate airlines and passengers from noticing six imams chanting "Allah" before boarding a commercial jet."

As if all of this isn't enough, she points out the history of one of the immams in such a manner as to make anybody want to stick with Greyhound.


"Shahin's own "scholarship" consisted of continuing to deny Muslims were behind 9/11 nearly two months after the attacks. On Nov. 4, 2001, the Arizona Republic cited Shahin's "skepticism that Muslims or bin Laden carried out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon." Shahin complained that the government was "focusing on the Arabs, the Muslims. And all the evidence shows that the Muslims are not involved in this terrorist act."

To which I personally thank Mr. Shahin for his, I am sure, qualified interpretation of terrorist evidence.

I'm still waiting for Richard Reid, the notorious shoe-bomber, to be released from prison, his prior conviction appealled for lack of evidence. After all, what proof do we have really that he intended to blow up the plane he was in? Because he lit a match to his shoelaces. Hell, what if he is sufferring from some kind of rare, debilitating condition that causes his feet to get excruciatingly cold? Maybe he is forced to heat them periodically. With matches.

Maybe the so-called bomb in his shoe was some kind of experiemental device that is supposed to aid in this affliction, only it wasn't working properly. Just because he was a Muslim, why do we assume the worse?

I'll be waiting for the building of my fucking cairns at all godamned airport runways.

I will probably be waiting until motherfucking Ragnarok.

Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey Confesses To Me-"I Am Not A Serious Candidate For President"!

If you can't take my word for it, just click on the post title, and the link there should take you to my last post concerning Jonathon's Presidential aspirations, and you can read for yourself in the comments section. No, it is not a direct quote, but it might as well be, as it suficiently paraphrases just how seriously he takes himself.

My response to each of his points now follows:

You might recall that I advised that Jonathon should hold a nationally publicized drawing to pick his running mate from among the mass of common everyday Americans, as oppossed to picking the typical, double dealing politician.

The following response was the first of his "CORRECTIONS".

1) At this time, my VP Candidates are; Christine Todd-Whitman (R-NJ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). I want a woman as VP. I am not taking applications with or without a fee!

MY RESPONSE-

You will do what I tell you to do, or you will lose.

Christina Todd Whitman? Just another mediocre, barely functional bureaucrat who can't begin to relate to normal people, wihout advisors and a focus group to tell her what to say and do. Just because they get lucky a few times here and there is insignificant.

Hillary Clinton? A cold, calculating bitch whose first order of business will be to completely shred the constitution, starting with the Bill Of Rights. A woman without a soul.

Elizabeth Dole? Come on now. I can understand why you might like the idea of Bill Clinton hanging around the White House, but do you really want Bob Dole roaming around? Won't the White House be scary enough with you running it?

Not that it matters, as they will refuse your invitation to be your running mate. A well publicized campaign to hold a drawing from among all Americans will raise money, publicity, and prove you are a man of the people who has faith in America and Americans.

Again, do what I said, or you will lose.

Well, you will still lose, but at least if you listen to me there's a slim chance you might draw enough votes to qualify for federal matching funds. Didn't think of that, did ya?

Of course, this was just the first of his "CORRECTIONS". The rest are as follows:

2) Spree and I were wed on; 4 Nov 06. I decided to turn her, after she asked me to. We did have a very romantic Wedding night, if you must know.

MY RESPONSE:

You are the one who advertised your wedding night goings on in your YahooGroup, I just relayed the message, in an effort to prove that you are a man who practices family values after your own fashion and are a man with a heart, love, and passion towards his chosen bride. Americans appreciate that and can relate to a candidate such as this.

All I want to know is-did you do this at the appropriate time of the month? Surely a true vampire would not be weak in the face of a gusher of opportunity.

Jonathon then went into a rant about Bush, which I take great exception to. Not because I like Bush-I do not-but because in a letter to his group members, he initimated that he considered there was a "Bush spy" in the group. When I read this next "CORRECTION", then, I was somewhat beside myself wondering if he considers this treacherous person to be myself.

He says here:

3) Bush while Governor of Texas stated he didn't recognize Wicca nor Paganism as a protected religion. Him and his cronies would burn Pagans, Wiccans, Witches, Vampyres and other Kins at the Stake if he could.

At least I will protect the Communities, and allow everyone to worship as they see fit!

MY RESPONSE:

No, Jonathon, I am not a spy for Bush, if that is what you are getting at. I am the real deal, a pagan, a Wiccan based Hellenic Pagan, to be exact. When you say, though, you will allow everyone to worship as they please, does that include Muslims? Going back on your campaign promises already, perhaps?

Then, as if the foregoing were not bad enough, Jonathon added insult to injury, and rubbed in a big batch of salt in the wound to boot, when he said:

4) I have an Attorney General already in mind for the position.

MY RESPONSE:

Well, I will have you know, MISTER Sharkey, I would have made the greatest Attorney General in the entire history of mankind. But now you've done it, bucko. I am no longer availiable. You've done gone and hurt my feelings.

Finally, Jonathon ended his uncalled for series of "CORRECTIONS" with the following advisory.


5) UNITY we better stand. Or if we're DIVIDED, we die!

MY RESPONSE:

Well, you had sure better be "UNITY" then when you and your "death dealers" make your trip to the Middle East to let all the leaders there know what's what, and what you have in store for them. I think you will have to count me out of that deal. I hate rigorous training to start out with, but if I were to engage in it, it would have to hold out the prospect of amounting to more than a suicide mission.

Like you, I get rather turned on at the sight of blood, under the proper circumstances, but the sight or even the thought of my own tends to make me rather squeamish.

I might however change my mind, I suppose. I'll let you know, probably after I walk alone in the middle of night to the most crime ridden black community in America in Ku Klux Klan regalia carrying a sign that says "Send All Niggers Back To Africa".

In other words, be sure and send some postcards.

He finally ended it with

Nel Sangue,

Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey

And in so casually disregarding and disrespecting my well thought out, friendly advice, has doomed his candidacy for the highest office in the land to be nothing more than just another footnote in the history books.

And here I was looking forward to Samhain (Halloween) being an official legally declared Federal Holiday, along with all the Wiccan Sabbats. I held out hope that much as the President traditionally pardons the turkey for Thanksgiving, and presides over the lighting of the White House Christmas tree, he would also give the annual Halloween blessing of the spirits of the night, as the White House for that day and night is open to the public and transformed into the "National Haunted White House Of Horrors".

But Jonathon in his effort to prove he is just another politically correct politican, albeit one with an attitude, hasn't even touched on these important topics. He is too busy reaching out to the mainstream, dag nab it, even going so far as to admit that his candidate for Vice-President must pass a sexual litmus test. So there you have it. A vampyre that places affirmative action before all else. He wil go the route of all politicians, I am afraid, into the dust bin of history.

And the things that will doom his campaign are, ironically, a combination of two things-

The cross and sunlight.

As for me, I guess I'll find another candidate to throw my support behind, one who will appreciate my efforts and my talents.

Karl Rove and James Carville ain't got nothing on me.

The Rape Of The Maiden

Although the Eleusinain Mysteries have for the most part been forgotten, most people are at leas vaquely aware of the mythology they were based on, that of the abduction by Hades, Lord of the Underworld, of Persephone-also kown as Kore (Maiden)-who was the daughter of Zeus and his sister Demeter, the ancient grain goddess.

The way the story goes, one day Persephone, still a young maiden, was out and about wandering through a field of flowers, when suddenly she was abducted, taken by Hades to his underworld realm. While there, he fed her a number of pomegranite seeds, whereby she was from that point on forever bound to him and to his deark realm.

Demeter was distraught, and had no idea where her daughter had vanished to, or who had taken her, and in her state of extreme grief, wandered the earth searching for her. As she did so, she neglected her duties of maintaining the earths abundance, whereby the days became shorter, the nights longer and darker, and the earth grew ever colder, as all plant life began to die out.

Eventually, she came to the area of Eleusis (near Athens) where a young boy described to her the events he had seen, of the beautiful maiden being abducted by what appearred to be an invisible man driving a team of horses that sprang up from he ground, down into which he took the maiden that matched Persephnes description. Demeter knew immediately this was Hades, wearing his helmet of invisibility.

Demeter demanded action from Zeus, who after some wrangling made a deal with Hades. For one half of the year, Pesephone would remain in the Underworld with him, as his bride. For the other half, she would return to earth to dwell with her mother. Her time in the Underworld is generally perceived as beginning at the time fo the Autumn Equinox, and ending at the beginning of the Vernal Equinox, whereupon she returns to earth, ushering in the worlds renewed fertility.

This is a very powerful myth. It is powerful even today. What person does not recoil in horror at the thought of a child being abducted, raped, murdered? You naturally feel a sense of near uncontrollable outrage at such a perpetrator, and while you hope for the safe return of the victim, you fear and prepare for the worse. This is just taking into account the reactions from bystanders, and the world at large, it doesn't even begin to take into account the anquish of parents and extended family members.

Still, whatever power it holds to us now, is minor compared to the hold it had on people in ancient times. During the days when this myth was cconceived, about 1600-1500 B.C.E., it was standard proceedure for a couple to produce a large family. Extremely rare indeed would be the parent or parents who did not outlive one or more of their many children.

It was not the exception. It was the rule.

At one point in time, somebody seized on this theme and transposed it into a myth which tied it to the seasonal cycles of the earth. Whoever that person, or persons, was, has long since been lost to us, but they had to have been very inspired by then current events. Possibly it had something to do with the recent fall of the Minoan Empire, which would have thrown that part of the Medditteranean world into a prolonged state of chaos. Possibly this person, or these people, had personal experience in their own lives of thes matters, experiences of a deeply profound and unsettling nature.

Before the eventual onset of the Mychaenaean Era, and it's resultant return to stability and propserity, there would have been periods of brigandage and piracy, and doubtless raids that resulted in death, destruction, and enslavement of whole populations. Rape, was well, would have suddenly bcome commonplace.

The people of the area of Eleusis probably, like all of the Meditterranean world, were thrown into a long period of privation, famine, poverty, disease, and general uncertainty, and this myth would have held out the promise of a return to better times.

Just as the spring follows the winter, so too would the earth eventually return to peace and prosperity. Life would go on.

During the festival to celebrate the Eleusinian Mysteries, an interesting thing happenned somewhere at the point of the beginning of the processional pilgriamge from Athens to Eleusis. At some point along the road, the worshippers would all stop, and en masse suddenly would begin to engage in shouting obscenities.

With the passage of time, and the fading from memory of many of the ancient origins of the ritual, this was interpreted as being in remembrance of a goddess who inadverdently made Demeter laugh and so temporarily forget her sadness.

More than likely, this spot was in reality the scene of some tragic occurrence that was relevant to the overall mytholoy of the Mysteries. But again, it like so much else has long since been forgotten.

But everything has not been, fortunately. The young child who gave Demeter the information as to what happenned to her beloved daughter was rewarded by the Goddess. She taught him the original Mysteries of Eleusis- the rites of agriculture. Therefore, through him, the first farmer, mankind would be assurred of a method of growing food and therefore insuring their survival. He himself would trvel the earth and teach these mysteries to all the worlds inhabitants.

And there may have been other aspects as well, involving a kind of spiritual rejuvenation, an assurrance of survival into an afterlife, of an ongoing connection to a persons descendants, and possibly even the prospect of a future return to physical life by way of reincarnation.

After all, the physical world of earth is surely a reflection of the life cycles of all it's children. It is something that is certainly worth reflecting on at this time of the year. As we reflect on the past year through this winter, in anticipation of the earths return inthe spring to fertile abundance, will it as well bring us the promise of greater abundance and fertility in our own lives, both of a material, emotional, and spiritual nature? We can always hope for that. We can try, at least, to live it.

The portrait of Persephone pictured above is from the JackalGallery.

When The Boot Fits-When The Gloves Don't

The First Amendment was recently dealt yet another devastating blow by the family, friends and supporters of the Goldmans and the Browns-in other words, by the collective pawns of the Trail Lawyers Association.

I won’t insult people by going into the details of the Brown-Goldman murders, as this should be unnecessary, plus, the way things are going, my blog will likely end up being censored.

As such, I will just cut right to the chase. O J Simpson is Not Guilty of the crimes of the brutal murders of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson, and of her “friend”, Ron Goldman.

I repeat-O J Simpson is Not Guilty.

Of course, he still might have killed them. But technically, he was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Therefore, Mr. Simpson has a constitutional right to speak openly and publicly about the murder, and to give his perspective about it. He has a right to say anything he wants to say about it.

And he should have the right to profit from any such statements, or utterrances, appearrances, or publications.

However, a travesty of justice has been perpetrated against the American justice system. A kind of perverse gang bang, if you will, perpetrated by both prosecutors and trial attorneys, that stands to benefit the both of them, and leave all the rest of us with a collective case of judicial syphyllis.

It’s a win-win situation for the trial attorneys. If one of their numbers is successful in getting a client off on charges of a crime or complicity thereof, somebody else can come along and screw him or her in civil court.

Prosecutors get the consolation prize, in the event that they fail to win a conviction, of knowing the accussed might well get the shaft in that same civil court.

This used to be called “Double Jeopardy”. But the system has been tweaked-i.e., fucked-as mainly a political calculation meant to soothe the anquish and rage of crime victims families.

Well, personally, I am interested in hearing what OJ Simpson has to say. Had I been given the opportunity, I think I could have gauged the level of his sincerity. If he had been deceptive, I think I could have seen through him. Here is one thing about O J Simpson that no one will dispute, including more than likely him and his most ardent supporters-he is a terrible fucking actor.

This makes me wonder if perhaps this is the thing that the Brown and Goldman families worry about the most, that Simpson might actualy convince enough people to call into question the propriety of the civil judgement they won against him.

It makes sense. As OJ himself pointed out in one of the few snippets to be shown on television of the interview that was pulled from Fox, how could a person kill two people in such a fashion without being covered in blood? Seen in this perspective, where did all that blood go, aside from a relatively minor amount that seemed to lead to his car and to his home. And could this even have been planted?

What about the gloves said to be worn by the killer, or by one of them? Why didn’t they fit OJ’s hands?

What is this about blood spatters presented as evidence turning out to have been previously tested in a crime lab? The potential explanation being that it may have been planted in the hopes of implicating Simpson. Though this has been denied, it has never been explained to my satisfaction.

What is all this about Nichole Simpsons’ alleged involvement with cocaine, with the concurrent possibility that she was killed by individuals involved in the Columbian drug cartels? Is it true that their signature method of execution is precisely the way these two were murdered?

Is it possile that the prosecutions shabby and unprofessional conduct in the Simpson trial was the result of a hurried aand ramshackle attempt to cover up and protect the cartel by making Simpson the scapegoat?

How was it that Goldman just happenned to coincidentally be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Did anybody seriously believe the official version, that he actually only knew Mrs. Simpson casually, yet went out of his way to return an item that she had left at the club they both frequented?

If this was true, and if Simpson really did set out to murder his estranged wife, why did he not wait until Goldman was gone? If he thought they were engaging in an affair, and he desired to murder the both of them in a jealous rage, why then did he not wait until they were both inside the home? Why take the chance of committing such a ghastly, gruesome, bloody crime outside, where it would be much more likely to have been seen and heard?

All he had to do was cut the telephone wires at a certain time, then brake in through a window. If he waitied until a certain time, he could have found a window they would have been unlikely to have heard breaking, then went on up and caught them in the act. They would have been in bed, naked, probably asleep or half way there-and totally at his mercy.

Of course, the answer to this will probably be that this brutal, enraged madman, bent on bloody double murder, to the point that he would have had to be criminally insane, didn’t want to take the chance of his kids seeing him do it.

I don’t believe a damn thing I’ve heard from either side concerning this case. Unfortunately, it’s beginning to seem as though the only version to be allowed any currency is the one officially sanctioned by the Goldmans and the Browns.

Oh well-the old Soviet Union had their show trials, and woe be unto any that had the temerity to question the official versions set forth by the Soviet state. The OJ Simpson trial fiasco has become historically the American version of that. It had all the elecments you would come to expect from such a staged event-

Celebrity, infidelity, lust, anger, violence, abuse, multiple murder, revenge, and money, all played out in a Los Angeles courtroom, packed with media cameras and reporters, and displayed on television screens across the nation.

Some people think OJ Simpson is destined for a special place in hell. I don’t know about all that, but he certainly does already have a special place in the American social gulag.

GOBBLE GOBBLE!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Eat that turkey, guys
I hope it's nice and plump and hot and tender
and juicy
Followed up with a scrumptious dessert
Pumpkin pie, banana pudding, cranberries,
and, oh yes,
Thank the ladies in your life kindly
For that ravishing repast
Send the kids out to play a little touch football
Sit the grownups by the tube
Don't forget to give thanks for all your good fortune
By all means, help out a little
Spread those legs and baste that meat
Then, stuff that fucker good

Kudos to Sonya Belle

Kramer versus Kramer

Michael Richards, who played the character of Cosmo Kramer in the 1990's hit television ensemble comedy "Seinfeld" is no longer welcome at The Laugh Factory, where last Friday night he went through a complete meltdown that was described by one witness as akin to a nervous breakdown. He lashed out at a patron of the club who had been talking through his act. When Richards complained, the patron told him his friend did not think he was funny. What happened next certainly was not. Richards launched into a tirade that included a reference to past race based lynchings and repeated angrily shouted racial slurs.

Richards had promised the proprieters of the club that he would apologize the following night, but during his appearrance, he failed to do so. As a result, the club on it's web-site released this statement, which is temporarily on the homepage.

He has been roundly denounced by the media, including several fellow comedians, such as Michael Rodriquez, who habitually refers to Anglos as "gringos", and by assorted other black comedians who casually address whites as rednecks and crackers. All in good fun, of course. (Snark Alert).

One comedian who leapt to Richards defense was former co-star Jerry Seinfeld, who arranged an on air apology from Richards on the David letterman Show. Some have opined that this appearrance was a desperate attempt to protect the integrity of the Seinfeld franchise, as this show was through the majority of it's ten year run on NBC in the top ten, and was number one for the night of it's series finale in 1998. It is still a hit in syndication.

However, the real life Kenny Kramer, the personage on whom the character of Cosmo Kramer was based, was not happy and openly and roundly denounced Richards. It has even been sugested that the real Kramer might even sue Richards for endangering the "Kramer" franchise. In fact, Mr. Kramer has made a living off the role, capitalizing off it to the point that he demanded, and received, a monetary settlement from NBC for the use of the characters last name. He has parlayed this into a bus tour of the area of New York that is represented by the series, including the now famous restaurant run by the "soup nazi". Among other such endeavors, he now operates this website.

You have to love these people. Well, I do, because it proves the point I've been making for years, and will always believe, which is, racism is an inherit aspect of the human condition. It can be hidden, or disguised, for so long, but under the right circumstances, it will emerge. Maybe not to such a profound degree as in this remarkable instance, but it is there nonetheless.

Nor does it have to be taught. Yes, I am aware that a young child does not have a racist bone in his body. But just wait until puberty sets in, at which point, upon becomming more adult, more independent, and more agressive-and with more demands for resposnibility and acountability-people naturally tend to form alliances, and they naturally in doing so become attracted to those they most identify with. And nothing serves as a more solidly identifying characteristic than race. Because it is more than just appearrances, it is an outer reflection of, to an extent, what we are, and more importantly, what we perceive ourselves to be.

In other words, it is not racism that has to be taught, but just the oppossite. To use another example, I know intellectually that a womans worth is not to be determined by physical beauty. But that doesn't prevent men, and especially teenage boys, from being sexually attracted to certain feminine physical types. That is just the way it is. To try to pretend otherwise is not only unrealistic, it is quite frankly irresponsible.

The reason that men are more attracted to certain types of women, and women to certain types of men, has something to do with some innate drive to strengthen the human species, which frankly manifests as desire and even lust for the person who adroitly portrays the qualities that triggers this mechanism.

Along the same lines, this drive to survive and excel will lead races to naturally congregate with others of their own race. This was a phenomenon that manifested most vividly in the more ancient times, true, but it has never gone away. It has just become more civilized. Although it is taught as taboo, it is still there. And it will probably take one or two more millenium, at least, before it is completely eradicated, and when this comes about, it wil be due to passing through that appropriate evolutionary stage. It will not come about through "education".

In fact, by teaching the opposite of human nature as science fact, the proponents of racial tolerance are in fact achieving the oppossite of what they intend. They are encouraging people to deny their base human natures, out of the vain hopes that it will go away. As though countless millenia of evolutionary human nature can be vanquished in a matter of decades by a few courses of sensitivity training.

What happenned to Michael Richards is not that difficult to understand, viewed in context. Here is a man who has had nothing substantial in the way of creative opportunities since the closing of Seinfeld. He was passed over for the role of "Monk" - a role that was actually created for him - for actor Tony Shalhoub, on the grounds that he would not be accepted by audiences in the role. The series went on to become a breakaway hit for the USA Network.

He was given a series called "The Michael Richards Show", which was tailored for him as well, but network executives demanded the show be made into a more conventional situation comedy. It didn't even last a complete season.

Who knows how long he has been sufferring from depression and anxiety, how long he has tried to repress his feelings of worthlessness and anger, not only over these circumstances, but in other areas of his life throughout the entirety of it? Comedians, are after all masters of sublimation, and many have lived tumultous lives of neglect and abuse. In so many cases, this provides the fuel for their comedy which provides an acceptable outlet for their pain. But sometimes, that pain comes to the surface.

What happenned at the Laugh facotry can be summed up quite succinctly. Richards was in emotional pain, and was assaulted by a patron in a manner that hurt him the most. Richards lost it, and he lashed out, against this person whom he did not really know, in such a way that was subconscously geared to hurt him back, in the only way he could do against an unknown adversary.

I am not excusing it. I am trying to understand it, and explain it in the manner which in my opinion provides the most rational view. I know that I am in the minority viewpoint on this, and that most will insist that racism and prejudice is not natural. Well, you can deny it all you want. But until the matter is dealt with and seen clearly for what it is-a natural phenomen of the human evolutionary cycle - then it can not begin to be understood, or dealt with adequately, and thus the problem will never get any better than what it is now. Shame, and denial, will not make it go away.

Oh, by the way, in conclusion-Michael Richards did not cause this controversy by calling a black patron "The N Word"-

He called him a "Fucking Nigger".

Just sayin'.