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?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, January 04, 2010
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.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, December 25, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
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.
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.
Here is who I suggest he nominate in her place. Unlike most of his other prospects, she might actually grow into the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)