How About A Research Grant To Study Senile Politicians?

Every now and then some people might need a reminder as to why they were not exactly enthusiastic supporters of Senator John McCain during last year's presidential election. I frankly knew he was in a great deal of trouble when he lost more than one fourth (27%) of Kentucky Republican voters in the Kentucky GOP presidential primary, even though he technically had the Republican nomination sewed up by the time the primary was held.

Here was a man who supported the "bail-out" of Wall Street and the banking industry, making a big show of suspending his campaign in order to go to the Senate in order to work for passage of the TARP legislation, and doing all of this over the fierce objections of a large portion of the Republican Party base.

Yet, throughout the campaign, he made a big deal out of the most insignificant amounts of money ear-marked for what he called "pork-barrel spending projects"-even though as was pointed out numerous times, including by myself, these earmarks (and granted, a great many of them were indefensible) in total amounted to roughly one percent of the entire federal budget.

Nor were all of them tantamount to wasteful spending. Although undoubtedly many of them were largess from the pockets of tax-payers distributed to targeted districts by elected representatives eager to shore up their support among a particular segment of voters, it is nevertheless just as true that many of them were economic boons to their areas. Or, they answered some other pressing need. At the very least, it put tax dollars back into districts from which they had been taken.

One case in point is the recent grant to study the effects of methamphetamine use on human sexuality.

Now, on the face of it, it would seem like it would be almost too easy to deride such a grant as an example of wasteful government spending. After all, why would one need to inject laboratory rats with methamphetamine in order to determine what we already know? Yeah, meth makes you horny and tends to erase whatever sexual inhibitions you might otherwise possess. There's a pretty good chance it might well turn you, quite literally, into a fucking fool.

So goes the objections voiced by John McCain and Tom Coburn, another Republican Senator, from Oklahoma, over this grant to Mary K. Holder, a grad student from the University of Maryland.

Only that is not the impetus behind the research. The actual reason-

Mary K. Holder, the Baltimore graduate student who received the research grant from a unit of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, said she hoped that her findings might be helpful in treating meth abuse. Holder said in her grant application that the study would explore "the molecular underpinnings" of meth-induced sexual behavior and would use immunocytochemistry and other advanced techniques to examine the drug's impact on brain cells in rats.

John McCain of course is a doddering old fool, who should be and largely has been overlooked. Tom Coburn is a different matter. This is a physician who should know better.

True, you can make a case that the federal government should not be involved in doling out taxpayer dollars for research that could easily be initiated by the private sector.

By the same token, you can just as easily, and with great justification, make the case that methamphetamine is a national problem that crosses state lines, adding to poverty, crime, addiction, and an increased illegitimate birth rate. You can also say it is potentially a national security problem. I know just from my own experience what a devastating problem the scourge of methamphetamine is and can be. It has devastated families in rural Kentucky, plagued entire communities, and been an overall detriment to the state's economy.

True, you can make the case, perhaps, that the grant money should not have come from the stimulus money. If that is the case, then make that case. It is really disingenuous to use political grandstanding and rhetorical deviousness to gain political points at the expense of what could be a valuable research project that could, hopefully at some point in the future, lead to a treatment for the addiction to the scourge of meth.

Not just in one small congressional area, but throughout the entire US. And the cost? The amount we are referring to for this horrendous "pork-barrel project"?

$28,900.00

This kind of picayune nonsense is exactly the reason large segments of voters looked at John McCain as though he were some senile old fool complaining about the cost of peanuts in the face of an avalanche of debt.

Coburn's position, on the other hand, aside from the aspect of pure political posturing, is simply incomprehensible. There are myriads of other examples of true government waste and bureaucracy he could and should be fighting. This is, at the very least, an indefensible waste of time.

And money.

Evil Propaganda Hate Machine

One television program I never liked is NBC's Law And Order, a lame-ass attempt at topical relevance over issues of the day which I like to describe as "ripped off from today's headlines". This abomination of a program long ago came up with a transparent attempt to slam anybody it didn't like, for whatever reason. Just give them a fictional name and pronounce them guilty of a crime.

Now granted they don't always merely limit themselves to personalities on the right. For example, they once declared Michael Jackson to be guilty of child molestation-before the real Michael Jackson was ever put on trial.

For the most part, however, it is usually people on the right who are the objects of their propaganda. The most blatant attempt to excoriate the right-wing was in this season's season premiere, which featured the DA character deciding he would prosecute the Bush Administration-for torture, if I remember right. I don't remember exactly what the charge was, because I didn't watch it. I should have, in hindsight, because then I would have a better perspective, but whether the show actually featured a trial, or whether said trial ended in a conviction or acquittal, or a hung jury or a mistrial, I am reasonably certain they made the point they wanted to make. George W. Bush and certain highly placed members of his administration should be charged with the crime, whatever it was-the implication being he and they were obviously guilty, otherwise the "heroic" DA would never dare put them on trial without compelling evidence to that effect.

I thought that was probably the penultimate in propaganda, one which the show's producers and writers would be hard pressed to surpass. Well, they have managed to do just that, in an episode in which three talk show hosts who are identified by their actual names-Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh-are accused of inciting violence by way of creating an atmosphere of hate.

The case in point-the murder of a government worker, found with the word FED scrawled on his chest in felt pen ink. Not only is this based on the case of the census worker who was found dead by hanging in a rural section of Kentucky with the word fed scrawled on his chest, it is also based on the false charge put forth by the political left that conservative pundits-talk radio and Fox News, etc.-did indeed create an atmosphere of hate that led to his murder.

The truth, however, is a different matter. It turned out to be a suicide, as well as a botched life insurance fraud attempt. Naturally, the scions of the left who went after Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh didn't have enough class to apologize, they just shut up about it. But they at least did that much, such as it was. Well, most of them did. A few of them defensively suggested that the charge of creating an atmosphere of hate was still a legitimate one.

But the guiding forces behind NBC's Law And Order have surpassed even them with this lame episode, which pretends the facts of the actual case proceeded to unfold and come to light just as they once imagined-and obviously hoped-they would turn out.

Of course, this is the same bunch that decided that the DC Sniper was actually a far-right wing militia type who abused his young son and forced him to go along with the crime. I guess that's what they call the magic of television.

We all make mistakes. I incorrectly theorized that the Ku Klux Klan might have been behind the murder of the Kentucky census worker-for which I owe the Klan an apology. Since I doubt that Glenn Beck, or any of the other right wing pundits, will get an apology from the left, I will now here allow Beck to make his case.



Hat Tip-Breitbart by way of Michelle Malkin.

Have We His Corpeus?

Oh, Tassos, we hardly knew ye. Where are ye, old man? What need would anyone have for your cancerous corpse, dead now for a year? Who would do such a thing, and why?

It obviously wouldn't be practical to have ol Tassos sitting around the house as a conversation piece. Is it a practical joke? Might there eventually be a ransom note demanding the reunification of Cyprus in return for the body of Tassos Pappadopoulis? After all, he and his party opposed such reunification schemes for years. He also fought against the British.

Should someone check the curios shops?

Someone went to a hell of a lot of trouble for some reason. I mean, come on, it's just a rotting old corpse now, it's not a sacred relic. Is it?

Quick Change

This latest CNN Poll is a perfect illustration as to how public attitudes can change when it comes to politics. According to the poll, voters now favor the Democratic Party over the Republican Party by a margin of 40% to 39%-a whopping one percent difference. It's not really been that much of an uphill struggle for the GOP, as they have just been steadily climbing, while the Democrats have been going downhill fast.

In January, the Democrats lead the GOP by twenty-five percentage points, but by August, their favorability margin had reduced to a still respectable ten percent. Now, at one percent, the polling difference is well within the statistical margin of error.

It gets even worse for the Democrats. Ordinarily, it is easy to exaggerate the significance of such polls. While most respondents might display a generic dislike of one party over another, in a great many of these cases, their anger and dislike will not translate into significant problems for their own incumbents, whom more often than not they tend to judge as an individual, as opposed to just another party apparatchik. This time, however, there might be a great deal of disruption and turnover. It so happens that the two regions where polling respondents have expressed the most dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party is in-the Northeast and the Pacific Coast, the two major traditional strongholds of Democratic Party support, at least insofar as the liberal wing of the party is concerned.

Next comes another zinger-

The poll also indicates Americans are split on which party they trust more to handle major changes to the country's health care system. Forty-three percent say they trust congressional Democrats more on health care reform, with four in 10 feeling Republicans would do a better job. The 3-point margin for Democrats is within the survey's sampling error.

There is one crumb of potential bad news for Republicans, however, in that most respondents expressed a preference for the concept of a "public option" in the formulation of a national health care reform bill. According to the poll, 53% of Americans approved such an option for the establishment of a government run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

Seeing as the Democrats did finally agree scrap the public option component of their health care reform plan, this might seem to be a moot point, but as I said in an earlier post, if the American health care situation worsens, and this is perceived as due in large measure to failure to provide for a public option, look for the Democrats to paint the Republicans as responsible for derailing the provision.

Naturally, they will portray this as a transparent attempt by Republican lawmakers to look out for their friends and lobbyists in the health insurance industry at the expense and to the detriment of the health care system in general, and the American people who are dependent on, and even oppressed in large measure by the current problems inherent in the system. And certainly, while the health insurance industry has a legitimate stake, just as do all other facets of the industry, this will be seen as a charge that might not be wholly without merit, particularly when Democrats have their own favorite whipping boys, such as Joe Liebermann, to point to as sterling examples of such seemingly unbridled cronyism.

It's something to think about. After all, things have changed this quickly with Obama just in office for roughly eleven months.

Well, there is exactly that much time left until the 2010 mid-term elections. You should never assume you have the championship wrapped up just halfway through the season.

When The World Stops Turning

After more than fifty years on the air, As The World Turns has been canceled, it's last episode slated to air in September of 2010. The reason is viewer decline, from a high of more than six million to just around 2.6 million. A hard fall for a show CBS did not want to preempt even to make way for news of the Kennedy assassination. It is just the latest announced departure of a long running soap opera.

I think the reason these old soaps are leaving the air is they have become too artificially hip, modern, and sexy. The old soaps were certainly always formulaic-they were corny, old-fashioned, and unrealistic in their portrayals and dialogues. They seemed contrived and even pandering. Still, all of that seemed in an odd sort of way to just add to their charm.

Now, there is little in the way of character development that doesn't seem so obvious you just know the shows are written by committee. The characters have become shallow caricatures of real people, which is ironic in this day when every characters is supposed to be topical and relevant in some regard. Now, every character of note is a sex symbol, and the stories in some cases have veered from the banal to the bizarre. Where once the shows were plain but homey and comfortable, now they are all flash with no substance.

It could well also be that viewers have become ever more sophisticated, and will balk at so many unrealistic coincidences, unsatisfactorily explained returns from the dead, kids that go away for two or three years only to return as completely mature adults, and people in supposed financial straights that always manage to maintain a relatively comfortable lifestyle.

Plus, soap operas have unfortunately become soap boxes for social causes, and of course as you might expect, they are most generally outlets for the espousal of leftist causes. That is a sure fire way to alienate a large portion of your potential audience during the best of times, but now in particular might not be the best time to go down that road. Ironically, the woman in the clip below, Penny, was one of the original soap stars, having as a child been with the show from it's inception, and she was also one of the first to demand that one of her characters, on another soap in which she later appeared, oppose the Vietnam War.

In the following clip, featuring her and boyfriend Jeff, one of daytime serial television's first "power couples", Jeff sings her a song he has composed for her. Sometime later, in a storyline that would shock and anguish fans of the show, Jeff would be killed in a car accident which would for a while turn Penny into an amnesiac.

Get'em While They're Young

It's not very often that I read a line that is so funny I wish I had written it, but Jenn Q. Public has done so in this post with the following statement-

I’m generally skeptical regarding accounts of Big Gay nefariously imposing a radical homosexual agenda on Americans. You don’t have to be Freud to analyze the hyperventilations of some conservatives about gay sex being “shoved down our throats.”

Now that is an ouch moment extraordinaire, but to be clear, she goes on to elucidate her skepticism with the caveat that there are indeed some gay activists that might well give conservatives good cause to feel the gay agenda is being shoved up their asses, so to speak.

It was with that in mind that I read Scott Baker’s shocking rundown of graphic and unhealthy sexual depictions in the youth reading materials recommended by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

So, what were these books, and how did GLSEN go about formulating the list? Admittedly, some of the books would seem to me to be relatively innocuous. Among these would be a "coming out" story about a gay Santa Clause who has a relationship with an Italian toymaker. Other than the fact that the name of said toymaker might, unless I am mistaken, leave the author and publisher open to a lawsuit from Disney, a book such as that would, on the surface, appear to be relatively harmless. Remember, this list is supposed to be recommended reading for gay children, to promote self-esteem, as well as tolerance among the general population. As such, you can expect a degree of political correctness and even some silliness.

Unfortunately, it goes well beyond this, with many books purportedly containing suggestions, recommendations, and justifications for sexual relationships between young gay boys and adult gay men. There are also some that deal with such diverse subjects as anal sex in public bathrooms, public masturbation, and something known as "fisting" (I still don't know for sure what that is and I'm not sure I want to know), as well as other forms of sexual deviance and perversion that is, nevertheless, treated as though it should be tolerated, accepted, and even encouraged among young gay males. Evidently, the notion of adult-child homosexual sex is treated in much the same manner in many of these books.

The most shocking controversy, however, involves just who in large part is responsible for compiling this list of GLSEN approved books.

GLSEN’s bibliography of “pre-screened” titles for kids was compiled to further the organization’s “mission to ensure safe schools for all students.” Books selected for inclusion were ostensibly “reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.” The list was developed under the leadership of Kevin Jennings, the founder and longtime executive director of GLSEN who now serves as President Obama’s safe schools czar.

The safe schools concept, as conceived by GLSEN, it should be noted, is to provide a safe educational background for gay students, basically, where they can be free of harassment and intimidation.

Since Obama has long made such a big deal about governing from the middle, perhaps it would not be asking too much of him to moderate his administrations policy here by appointing a Czar who will protect gay students from the likes of Kevin Jennings, as well as GLSEN activists and their supporters, when they are not in school.

Politics-No Nonsense Romanian Style

From the country that brought you Vlad The Impaler and Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu, we now present the newest Romanian political phenomenon-President Traian Bassescu, who in another life was a former ship's captain, and who now as President illustrates here his unbounded love for Romanian youth.



This unimaginably stupid stunt almost cost him the election this time out (even though this actually happened during the 2004 election), even though his supporters insist the video is a fake. Whatever the case, the opposition Social Democratic Party, led by former diplomat Mircea Geaoana, has leveled charges of fraud and promised to demand the results be thrown out, while at the same time claiming they had nothing whatsoever to do with the video one way or another.

If it does turn out that this video is legitimate after all, I should point out that Bassescu didn't do anything here that most European politicians don't do to European children every day, only they tend to do it with a pen and a piece of paper.

But, give them this much, at least they don't treat them like they do European adults. Then again, while that is commendable, it is also understandable. Hitting children is one thing. Fucking them is something else again.

Be Careful What You Don't Want

Obama is determined to get a health care reform bill passed by the Senate, and he has been meeting with Senate Democrats in order to iron out their differences. Obviously, a public option is one of the main sticking points, with many Blue Dog Democrats opposed. Yet, Obama knows he needs all sixty Democratic Senators in order to prevent a Republican filibuster.

I don't want any of the bills proposed to pass, frankly, but I have to wonder if, of all the different possibilities under consideration, one that includes a public option is that bad, relatively speaking.

In fact, I will go on record here as stating that, if there is any health care reform bill at all, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by this president, it had damned well better include a public option, or we are all in a lot of trouble, particularly if a part of the bill includes a mandate that all are legally bound to buy some form of insurance.

Many people wonder if they could be in danger of prosecution should they fail to purchase insurance under such a law, something the White House denies. That, however, is only a part of the problem. If the bill contains that kind of provision, and it is enforceable, you can expect insurance rates raise and possibly even skyrocket without a public option. In fact, in some places such as Utah they already are. Oh, maybe not for everybody, but you can damn well be sure that for the middle class, any decent insurance plan will probably increase by at least ten to twenty percent-and I do mean, at least.

A public option would probably serve to put the brakes on those potentially devastating increases, or at any rate, they should limit them somewhat.

People really need to think things through better before they jump on these bandwagons. It's one thing to oppose health care reform on principle. It's something else again to pick it apart to where it ends up being even more of a monster than what it has to be.

Ohmigod I Got This Like, Hair, Growing Like, You Know, Between My Legs

All you hear is bad news anymore, you have like, I'm saying, scientists maybe like lying about global warming and being sneaky about it, and you have like, Obama playing doctor-in-chief, and throwing hissy fits about afghans in the oval office, you have republican governors going around shooting cops, and every time you turn around you have people dying and what have you.

BO-RINGGG!

So anyway, here I was reading this story about Miley Cyrus and I was all like, well, whatever. I mean, what's wrong with Miley that she is, like, getting tattoos? Gross! And man, I mean, what would ever make her want to shake her booty like some little slut, flipping her hair back and I mean, did you know she is even doing pole dancing in public? I'm like Ewwww, god, and how about this, you know, story about her trying to get into a Miami Beach nightclub, don't she know she has young fans that like, you know, look up to her and that she is like, you know, a role model and what not?

This is SOOOOOO wrong! She should think, I mean, just think about what kind of image this presents to her young fans and like, what, just consider, you know, their parents might think about her.

HELLL-LOOOOO!! You just turned seventeen Miley, it's not like you're a real, like, you know, honest-to-God person yet. You better straighten up and get your act together, because parents are worried about the things you say and do and you know, how it might affect their kids because, you know, people need to grow the fuck up.

Tiger's Dilema

This is not a bash Tiger Woods post, nor is it a defense of him. I'm just curious about something that goes really beyond Tiger's problems right now. In a sense, I think we are all Tiger Woods, or have that potential-the potential, that is, to fuck up royally. This guy has it all-he's a billionaire, he has (for now) a wife who possesses the kind of physical beauty that most men can only fantasize about, he has what on the surface appears to be an idyllic family life, he is, or has been, literally the idol of millions, and he is one of the few sports figures who is not only a role model, but who up until now presumably deserved to be considered as such.

Then he had to go and fuck it up by screwing around not just with one extra-marital affair, but two-and maybe three. Maybe more than that. And he did it with such a casual flair it's almost like he was wanting to be caught. He texted one of his mistresses with his wife in the house, as well as his mother and mother-in-law.

Is there something about us, as a species, that the more we have, the more unworthy we feel, and so we go about trying to sabotage our lives to where we can bring ourselves back down to earth? Are we really that bad deep down that we just on some inner level don't feel like we deserve good things?

Or is it possible that, when we achieve the penultimate success, and wealth beyond our wildest dreams, and the adoration of the masses, it does something to us that we are led to think that we are invincible, infallible, gods in the flesh. Is this an example of a situation where, when we are successful and well-loved, it causes us to drop our pretenses of morality and just be more comfortable than what we should be, being what we really are?

Does it lead us to believe that our success is a sign that we are actually better than most other people, and so deserve to indulge our whims, even those things that we know would cause others to judge us harshly, while accurately seeing us as we really are?

Do we indulge our most base pleasures as a means of dulling some unspeakable pain from our past, or even our present, some raw nerve or wound that never quite healed, but which we have never managed to face up to? Is it some suicidal impulse that causes us to do those things that we should know are self-destructive, that will hurt those who love and depend on us, and send our lives spiraling even further out of control? Do we do these things as an unconscious method of making ourselves come face to face with the pain by way of pleasure?

We all deserve to be loved, or at least we all did at one point. But do any of us really deserve to be adored? If the world sees us as perfect, can we really be human?

The answer to that last question is yes, and that's the good news. It's also the bad news.

Obama's Afghan Strategy

I aint going to bother hunting up a bunch of links for this post, as everybody pretty much knows the story by now anyway. Obama gave a speech last night from, in the words of Chris Matthews, "The Enemy Camp" of West Point, at which he laid out his plan for the Afghan War. Okay, I have three problems with it.

One. It too soooo long, it makes you wonder, what would happen if we were ever attacked? Would it take this long to come up with a strategy for a reprisal? I sure as hell hope not, but it makes you wonder.

Two. Timeline for withdrawal. Yeah, we've all been through this debate too many times, so I won't rehash it here, other than just adding it to the list.

Three. And here's the biggie, for me. He's talking about including "moderate" Taliban in any effort to bring about peace. Okay, at first glance, that would seem to me something like saying "I'm going to get me a vicious killer dog to guard my property, but I think I'm going to opt for one that just has a slight case of rabies". Is there really any such thing as a moderate Taliban? I mean, I know where he's coming from. Some of these people are probably just hangers-on, just riding the wave and going with the flow. They figured, at one point or another, "hey, you're either with the Taliban or you're against them." Seeing as how they were probably understandably attached to their heads, they decided they would be with them.

But is that who we really want to pin our hopes on? I understand quite well that he is basing this on the Surge strategy in Iraq, which included a process called "The Awakening" in which, to put it bluntly, various tribal leaders and insurgents in Iraq were pretty much bribed to fight alongside us, as opposed to against us. Failing that, at least they should just tone it down a notch or two.

Well, in their case, it worked. But these were not people who had a strong attachment to religious fundamentalism. These were people who initially fought against us for any number of reasons. They were Sunnis who feared the prospect of a potential Shi'ite majority rule over the country in which, under Saddam Hussein, they were the privileged minority class. For all the harping the left does about apartheid, whether it be South Africa or as pertains to Israeli domination of the Palestinians, they seem to conveniently forget the fact that, under Saddam, Iraq was the penultimate apartheid nation. But that's a story for another post. The point is, in order to win these people to our side, we had to convince them their rights would be protected from reprisals for past misrule.

Then of course there were those who just fought against us for no other reason than national pride. They saw us as the aggressors and occupiers. We had to convince them that we had no intention of turning Iraq into our own national possession, that we fully intended to leave, when it became practical to do so.

For the most part, though, we simply bribed them.

The Taliban might well be a different story, and I see potential for all kinds of mischief here, when the "moderate" Taliban use this policy as a way of gaining entry into the infrastructure of political power where, once they are safely ensconced, they can work to increase their presence and influence, until finally, the next thing you know, the Taliban is back in control of the country, and non-Taliban members of the government are removed from power, and more than likely killed as the result of a sudden coup.

Well, that's my concern, hopefully the potential for such prospects has been deliberated. They've sure taken their time, surely the idea has come up once or twice here and there.

But of course, Obama is dancing on a tightrope, trying to please the left and the right, and his main problems here seem to be with the left. Bear in mind, prior to Obama's election, the left used to scream that Afghanistan was the real legitimate war on terror, and that Iraq was a diversion. Now that Obama is president and the Democrats are in power, they've conveniently forgotten all that, and want us now out of Afghanistan as much as Iraq, which you barely hear a peep about any more.

I just wonder why they are so obvious in their reversals on Afghanistan. Has the US done that good a job eradicating the opium crop? The last I heard, it was still going strong and efforts to eradicate it have so far met with modest success at best. So it can't be that.

Maybe they're just afraid they might eradicate it?

Adventures In Parallel Time

I don't know when or how it happened, or how long it's been going on, but evidently at some point in time, I have managed to accidentally slip through some dimensional barrier into a parallel universe that is strangely like, and yet disturbingly unlike, the one from which I came. That being said, I ask my readers on this parallel version of The Pagan Temple to bear with me as I try to understand the implications of this article From The New York Post

Fearing for the lives of the 9/11 fiends, the German government will send a team of observers to the New York terror trials to make sure evidence by its agents doesn't lead to the death penalty.

Germany, which bans the death penalty, will have a team at the trial of admitted atrocity mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (right) and four of his al Qaeda henchmen. The evidence gathered by German investigators could lead to death sentences.


See, in the dimension that I come from, it was the United States that won World War II, not the other way around. What does this all mean?

Well, evidently it means that in this parallel world, my grandma very possibly fucked a bunch of German soldiers and don't have nothing to show for it but an old pair of nylons. That's assuming of course she ate the chocolate bar.

I want to go home.

This Was Not Just A Vote-This Was A Warning

Keep it in Amman, Akhmet, we don't want it here. That pretty much sums up the recent Swiss vote to ban construction of any further minarets, which passed with 57% of the Swiss vote. Of course, the bosses of the European Union will probably pressure the Swiss government to hold another vote, and a third and fourth if necessary, until they finally get the outcome they desire-much like they did in regards to the recent Lisbon Treaty, but that's beside the point.

It's not so much about hating Islam or Muslims, the way I see it. It's about limiting the capacity for increasing Islamization that any Swiss citizen sees on-going to a much greater extent in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries, and the Netherlands than they ever intend to put up with in Switzerland. They want to nip that stinking tulip in the bud, so to speak, and rightly so.

Good for them. What just happened in Switzerland is probably a pretty good barometer as to the sentiment of the majority of citizens in all the countries listed above. Read the on-line versions of any British paper, from the Guardian to the Times, and you will see the same sentiment expressed in reader comments on any story concerning a controversial story involving Islam and Muslim European citizens. Anti-Islamic bias is front and center in these comments, and has been for some time, and in most examples I have noted, they vastly outnumber the pro-Islamic sentiments.

Only, again, it's not about Islam, in my opinion, it's about simple respect for the host country and it's citizens, and it's culture and values. Unfortunately, the citizens of the lower and lower-middle class neighborhoods in these countries are the ones who bear the brunt of the problems, while the European elites who promote the excessively liberal immigration policies are safely ensconced within the safe confines of their upper class neighborhoods. They are not affected by the street crime, by the robberies, the murders, the increasing number of rapes conducted against women by uncouth savages who's hormones go into a murderous rage over a sight of bare female leg. Or for that matter, by an uncovered female head. How long will it take before European women are disfigured by acid thrown in their faces by disgruntled Muslim men, acting of course in the name of Allah?

If they are really sincere in their assertions that immigrant Muslims will over time acclimate to European life (otherwise known as "civilization"), and that ordinary Europeans should just give them time to adjust, then I personally think they should move a substantial number of them into their own upper class neighborhoods. And I'm not talking about the wealthier, higher educated Muslims, I'm talking about the common superstitious, insanely fanatical and/or criminal swine that passes for humanity through some simple incidental fact of DNA. You want them, you should have to live with them.

This is an embarrassment to the European elites, but they should take it as a wake up call. We are talking about a race of people who, of all the people on earth, are at the deepest core of their being, the most savage, bloodthirsty, murderous barbarians on the face of the earth. Because of this fact, their own leaders fear them and their potential for barbaric cruelty and inhumanity. Having some time ago recognized this fact, the leaders of these people have kept them pretty much docile and tame for the last sixty years. Prior to that, you would be hard pressed to find so much as a twenty year period, in all their two thousand plus years of recorded history, when they were not in one place or another burning, looting, raping, pillaging, and murdering each other.

And-loving it.

I am, of course, not talking about Muslims, but Europeans. If the leaders of Europe don't get their acts together, there might well, eventually, be a backlash the likes of which you could scarcely comprehend. And once the masses of Europe are sufficiently riled, they might not stop with the Muslims, most of whom frankly may not deserve such barbaric treatment. No, they might not stop until they reach the very elitists who put them in this position-who will deserve it.

And frankly, this time I hope we in the US are not persuaded to come to their rescue.

We Get It Lambert-You're Gay

Pictured above-Adam Lambert, engaging in a good old-fashioned, wholesome act of simulated oral sex with one of his dancers during his performance at the American Music Awards.


While things like Kick A Ginger Day and Kick A Jew Day are thankfully rare events in American public schools, Kick A Gay Day is a pretty much on-going event, occurring randomly and seemingly with more spontaneity than thoughtful design. That's why I don't have a lot of sympathy for Adam Lambert and his disingenuous claims of double standards and discrimination in the American entertainment business. Yes, what he says is true, but that's beside the point. It is especially beside the point when you consider that people like Lambert would be right on the bandwagon calling for someones head if they dared say something deemed racist or homophobic. They would demand a public apology and if the apology was forthcoming, they would still be demanding the offending person be fired, such as Don Imus, or blackballed, such as Mel Gibson, etc.

So, yeah, Lambert, cry me a river. Frankly, I didn't care myself that Lambert kissed his keyboard player during his performance at the American Music Awards. Nor did I care that he engaged in a simulated act of oral sex with one of his dancers, who appeared to be giving Lambert a blow job right in the middle of the performance.

Now, after days of denials, charges, and counter-charges, in which Lambert refused to issue any sort of apology, explaining that he is "not a babysitter" but an entertainer, he finally admits he might have gone too far and promises from now on to focus first on his music.

Fine, but I still think he's lying about the whole thing being spontaneous. The kiss with the keyboard player, okay, that might, just possibly might, have been spontaneous. The whole thing with the dancer-sorry, I don't buy it. Dancers live, eat, and breathe choreography, and something like that would throw a dancer off his stride big time. Granted, a good dancer would recover pretty quickly, maybe faster than the eye could catch it, but it would still obviously be a big risk to take. Too big a risk. All it takes is for the slightest thing to go wrong, and it can lead to all kinds of mishaps, as witness J-Lo's fall, earlier in the same show, from the back of a dancer who's back was just a bit too sweaty for the aging cow to dance on and gracefully slink to the floor from.

And then there's ABC. Please spare me. Like they didn't know this was going to happen. Although I didn't watch Lambert's performance, I was going to and fro from one room of the house to another doing things when I caught the announcement, something to the effect that Lambert's up-coming performance would be one that "you will never forget", according to the announcer, who had a glint of mischievous menace in his eyes.

Yeah, right I said to myself, and went about my business. I didn't know about all the controversy until the next day, but earlier in the show, I did catch that flaming ass-hat Perez Hilton winking salaciously at the camera as he strongly implied that he did something with some guy in the bathroom. Where are all the apologies from ABC over that? Of course, there were none, because Lambert's performance got the lion's share of the complaints.

Since then, most of the talk has been about "the kiss", while very little has been said about the far more indefensible blow job. Naturally, as the kiss can be compared to the one between Madonna and Britney that appeared on a previous awards show a few years back. Lambert's oral sex simulation routine is, so far as I know, wholly unprecedented. So why bring it up? Concentrate instead on the kiss, which gives grounds for charges of a double-standard that at least gives the network some breathing space, and grounds for defense.

In the meantime, gay kids across America are yet again denied the potential for a positive role model, and are once more laughing stocks, and potentially targets for yet more abuse, all at the same time. In a world that sees The Folsom Street Fair as the descriptive embodiment of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, can't there just be one gay person of fame and accomplishment who doesn't have to act like a flaming faggot for all the world to see, and that we should all like it or lump it?

I mean, come on, every group has some role models they can point to for the benefit of their kids, except that is for gay kids. Who do they have that they can point to with pride? Ellen? Ok, maybe for the lesbian girls, but who else. Rosie O'Donnell? Barney Frank? Who the fuck would want that piece of shit hanging on his bedroom wall?

Of course, the reason for all this is pretty plain-in order to be a positive role model as a homosexual performer-or civic leader, or politician, etc.-that would entail saying, "oh, by the way, I'm a homosexual and I support and promote gay rights", and otherwise pretty much just shutting the fuck up about it. You know, the way Lambert pretty much kept coy and quiet about it while he was still a contestant on American Idol. Just sing, dance, do your civic duty, do your job, whatever it is, like everybody else, and act like you're halfway human, as opposed to a cartoon-or a poster child for the Sodom and Gomorrah Travel Bureau.

But then again, that would be contradictory to the philosophy that insists that gays, in order to promote gay issues, have to make a spectacle of themselves. And they wonder why most people are opposed to gay marriage rights, and why more and more people such as myself increasingly fail to give a damn about it.

RINO's For Obama-Ed Rollins Cries To CNN

Ed Rollins is going off the deep end over the dinner-crashing incident involving the Salahis, pictured above talking with President Obama, while the vaguely remembered Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stands off in the background.

Rollins is incensed at the couple's actions, and wants them prosecuted, and he wants people fired, even intimating that it would not be going too far to expect Mark Sullivan, the Director of the Secret Service, to resign. Like he was directly responsible for this fiasco, you see. Going by that criterion, which is legitimate only in the eyes of the mentally retarded, or ass-kissers like Rollins, why stop with Director Sullivan? Why not go on all the way up to his superior-Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who is, after all, the Secret Service Director's boss? Shouldn't she be held accountable for this breach as well as Sullivan?

Why is Rollins so incensed about this anyway? The first state dinner given by the Obama Administration has turned into fare for late-night comedians? Oh, cry me a fucking river. Why is he so concerned about how this looks bad for Obama? How is this an insult to the Indian Prime Minister? To be honest, every time I saw this guy he looked to me like he would prefer to be just about anywhere in the world but at the Obama White House, which might to him be just one or two degrees of preference above Tora Bora or Waziristan-or maybe downtown Calcutta on a Saturday morning at the stroke of midnight.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for prosecuting these people if they did break the law, but a little perspective here would be nice. Look around the room at all the people there who actually had legitimate invitations to be at the dinner. The Salahis might well be the most outstanding citizens of that whole sorry, motley crew of jackals and hyenas.

Also, by God, I'll tell you something else. The Salahis might have actually done this sorry fucking White House a favor by showing just what kind of shape their security apparatus is in.

Not that you can expect any different, or not that you should really give a fuck. This country has gone security crazy, and you can thank liberal Democrats for the sorry shape it's in. Which party is it again that has been coddling criminals for the last forty years at least? Thank you. That's right, it was liberal judges, appointed by liberal politicians-mostly Democrats, but also in many cases fucking RINO's like Ed Rollins-who set in place the policies that would make it possible to let John Hinckley out of the mental institution he was sent to (as supposed to the grave he should have been dumped in at least twenty years ago) after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the attempted assassination of President Reagan.

Now Rollins, that disgusting old RINO who used to work with Reagan, has the gall to bring up the specter of the attempt on Reagan's life as a reason to go ballistic over this fiasco. Give him time and this genius will be figuring out a way to blame Sarah Palin for the lax security.

Nothing but liberal politicians-like Edward Kennedy, ironically-could have set in motion such a set of events which now make it impossible to move in Washington, or to so much as breathe in Washington, without a major security lock-down taking effect if you just look like you might be slightly irritated, or anxious, in the presence of a fucking politician. All because a long, long time ago we got way too timid to get as tough as we should with the garbage and dregs of society, who after all, do tend to vote Democratic.

And mind you, it's not merely because you yourself might be a physical threat. If that was all it was, this probably wouldn't be half the big deal it is right now. You might, if you are not prevented from doing so by a crack, elite cadre of trained, killer government agents-make the President the butt of jokes on late night television. Rollins even says that in the CNN article. He talks about the embarrassment at least as much as he talks about any potential legitimate threat.

And of course, this piece of shit just has to go that extra mile by insisting that the Salahis should be prosecuted for-yes, of course, "for the chiiiiiil-drennnnnn"! It would just set a bad example for our nations blessed, innocent youth to see these people get away with something like this-assuming they take the time to peek up from World of Warcraft or Guitar Hero long enough to see there's actually a real fucking world going on around them.

Prosecute the Salahis? Fuck that, I changed my mind. Give these people a fucking award. They probably made a more positive contribution to the cause of America's security, on balance, than most if not all the other worthless cunts who attended the dinner will make in their whole sorry fucking careers.

As for Ed Rollins, somebody please piss in this old fool's Cheerios tomorrow morning so he'll have something legitimate to cry about on CNN.

A Breach Of Trust

There is something about this story that concerns me much more than the fact that Michaele and Tareq Salahi, a couple of limelight seekers and would-be reality tv stars, crashed a presidential state dinner. They actually, as citizens, had as much right to be there as any so-called "real" socialites, and in fact, they might have had more right to be there than many that were there. As far as I'm concerned, that is actually true, at least theoretically, of any American citizen without a questionable criminal record.

Fine, the woman crasher, it turns out, might be a bit of a phony. No, evidently, she was never really a Washington Redskins Cheerleader. No, she was never, really, a model for Victoria's Secret. Yes, she, as well as her husband, are publicity mongers.

On the other hand, the gentleman in question is the owner of a Virginia based vineyard, and has been described as a world-class polo player, and in fact has been instrumental in founding two different charity polo events. He formed the one after losing control of the other, true, and his running of the events has raised questions as to his financial management, and his vineyard has fallen on hard times, due to a family feud between he and his mother over ownership of his late father's holdings, and his-but hell, nobody's perfect, right?

Granted then, the Secret Service is correct to be mortified and concerned owing to this obvious breach of security, but having said all that, this is really, in the grand scheme of things, a minor issue in comparison to what should be of the most paramount concern to the American people.

What in the hell was Brian Williams doing there? This is a man who is allegedly a journalist, and who has been given the duty-some would go so far as to call it a sacred trust-to be a watchdog over those in power, and exercising power, over our country and the formation and execution of it's laws and treaties.

So did he attend this much-lauded first Obama state dinner by way of flashing his press credentials? Was he there in his capacity as a reporter?

No, he was there as an honored guest. He all but brags about that in the preceding interview. It gets worse. He noticed the couple, early on, and noted the strangeness of their actions and their demeanor, even going so far as to note that the SUV which had carried them to the opening gates-WAS TURNED AWAY! Despite this, he saw them get out and make a spectacle out of themselves on their way back to the front gate on foot.

Yet, even after making note of all of this bizarre behavior, even to the point that it was a matter of some conversation between he and his wife, this veteran newsman did not even bother to make inquiries to the people in charge of the dinner, which he certainly could have done. How could anybody be expected to know, unless you knew them personally, who they were and what they were or might have been up to as they suddenly appeared at the dinner, hobnobbing with Joe Biden, Rahm Emmaanuel, and even speaking briefly to the President himself?

Granted, it would seem unlikely that the couple would be a threat, given the manner in which they so haphazardly and openly approached the gate in the company of a make-up artist and cameraman. They didn't exactly act like they were anxious to hide anything. Still, I would have been very curious as to why they turned up at the dinner, after the vehicle in which they first arrived-I can't stress this enough-was turned away.

Then again, this is exactly the kind of thing that got Williams his invitation to the state dinner in question to begin with. Just don't ask any questions that you don't clear with us first. Just take it for granted that we know what's best, and that everything happens for a reason. We should not be expected to explain everything, or for that matter, anything, but if you show us in a good light, we'll let you be our unofficial spokesman, under the guise of "journalist". When you're finished, bow politely and leave.

Williams was in such a rush to make sure we all knew how he had been honored to appear as a guest at this dinner, he didn't take the time to realize how it looks. The sad thing is, neither do most other people, I'm afraid. All they know is there was a breach in security, but they have Williams to assure them that this kind of breach is a rarity, and that, really, folks, security at these things is really state-of-the-art. He should know, he was subjected to it himself. So once again, he becomes an unofficial apologist for this administration.

The dinner-crashing couple are only would-be elitists, while Williams, give him his due, by God, is the real thing. Doesn't that just mean that he is a more accomplished phony? Unofficially, of course.

Twilight New Moon-Romanticizing The Monster

It's pretty easy to see why the Twilight movie series, including the current installment, New Moon, is so popular to the point that it is a bona fide phenomenon. It's obviously not because the premise is so exciting and original, nor is it because it is, artistically, anything approaching a cinematic tour de force. It's because it deals with a subject matter in a way that can only be described as pure escapist, romantic fantasy, and does so unabashedly.

This is a different kind of vampire flick. It comes closest to Lost Boys than to any other, but only on the barest of surface resemblances. Twilight's Edward Cullen, played by Robert Pattinson, is Dracula wearing a promise ring. He has never, nor presumably will he ever, consummate his desire for Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), but he will protect her from any other vampire, even those among his own clan, who might lust after her, such as when one of his vampire clan almost jumps her veins when she, accidentally cutting herself, flashes a bit of blood.

After this, he abandons her, breaking up with her on the grounds that, in some strange way, this is the only way he can protect her. He goes off to Italy, whereupon Bella is promptly threatened by the vengeful vampiress who wants revenge for the death of her undead lover, killed by Edward (in defense of Bella, of course) at the end of the first Twilight movie.

Since Edward is now away, Bella must turn to the mysterious brooding werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), setting up what is meant to be the ultimate romantic triangle, only we already know how that will end up. Bella loves her werewolf friend, but evidently more in the way one would love a loyal dog. Soon enough, Edward will return, and the two will be together again, and you'll have to wait until June of 2010 to see where it goes from there.

On the other hand, since the movie series has been faithful to the novels-to a fault, I dare say-it's really no big mystery.

The series has been condemned from many different perspectives, ranging from the Vatican to Miley Cyrus, and almost every movie critic in the world. In the case of Miley, who has described devotion to the franchise as a cult, it would seem to obviously be a case of sour grapes. But is the Pope's condemnation much different? His Vatican spokesman have described the film as "a moral vacuum with a deviant message", yet the movies, like the books on which they are based, seems to promote much the same values, at least insofar as concerning sexual morality, that the Pope seems to find laudable. In fact, Stephanie Meiers, who wrote the novels on which the movies are based, is a devout Mormon, and while she claims she has not written these books from a Mormon perspective, she readily admits she was influenced by her values, which she describes as life-affirming and positive, with an emphasis on light, as opposed to darkness.

True, the characters are, at least technically speaking, supernatural monsters, but they are for the most part not your father's vampires and werewolves. This is not Dracula, or Barnabas Collins, nor even is it Keifer Sutherlan from Lost Boys.

And herein is really my problem with the series. I don't begrudge the romantic fantasies of the young girls and some boys, along with an unexpectedly high number of middle-aged moms. Like I said, it's pure romantic escapist fantasy.

My main problem, in fact my only problem with it, is it represents an evolution of the vampire story in a way that is far removed from the original premise. That in itself would not be so bad, but where it gets to be troublesome is in the way it dominates the market. These things take on a life of their own, and much like the vampires they portray (or rather in this case unlike them) they suck the oxygen out of the air, and the very life-force out of any other possibilities.

Dracula, the original vampire, was never conceived as a romantic hero. He was a violent, blood-thirsty beast who presented the thinnest surface veneers of civilization. He was a predator of the most cruel, heinous variety. He was perhaps one of the oldest recurring characters in cinema to be described as "the villain you love to hate". Only, as is often the case with such descriptions, movie-makers caught on to the reality that nobody really hated Dracula. He spawned countless imitators over the years, many of them progressively watered down and romanticized.

Thus you had Barnabas Collins of Dark Shadows, who more than any other character is a perfect representative of the evolution of the vampire myth. When first introduced in the ABC sixties soap which had been struggling in the ratings, he was a cruel, savage, and yet strangely charming beast bent on murder and revenge, yet over the course of months, he was revealed to be haunted by a lost love, which inspired his vampiric curse from the wiles of a hateful, jealous witch. He soon became a tragic anti-hero, engaging in two different time traveling escapades in order to save the haunted Collins family from first one unsavory supernatural menace after another. Once he realized he had always loved the witch after all, the curse was over-and the series folded.

Now, there have been rumors the Dark Shadows saga might get a reworking, with Johnny Depp playing the role of Barnabas Collins.

In the meantime, lost is the original premise of the predatory monster who steals blood, lives, and souls in order to maintain an existence of ephemeral immortality. Maybe it's easy to see why the Pope finds the Twilight premise so disturbing after all. Evil takes a holiday in these films, in the sense that there are no clearly defined boundaries. A vampire of Twilight is not necessarily a villain. He has the same free will as any normal human. The supernatural aspects are mere window dressing for the selling of what is in reality a simple romantic saga.

Quentin Tarantino lost out early on the opportunity to strike a gold mine beyond his wildest dreams at the time he directed his 1996 film, From Dusk Till Dawn. In it, George Clooney spent the entirety of the second half of the movie fighting a Mexican strip-club full of vicious vampires that were coincidentally closer to the spirit of the original vampire premise than the vast majority of other film offerings either before then or since. Clooney's character destroyed all the vampires in the film, and managed to do so without ever being afflicted with the curse himself. Had Tarantino used his head, he might have originated a franchise that might still be on-going to this day. After all, the magic of computer generated graphics can probably do wonders for the appearance of an aging sex symbol.

And that is really what this all boils down to-sex appeal. It's so obvious it's almost embarrassing to have to remind people that there's some very serious sexual repression and maybe even rape fantasy going on here with a lot of vampire fans. I feel I might even be insulting the reader's intelligence by pointing this out, but really, I would be remiss if I did not give some lip service to the idea that women, and men, are taken by the idea of the strong and noble but savage predator taking total control of a person's very essence, controlling his victim utterly while ushering her, or him, into a state of ecstasy that is so obviously tinged with sexual overtones.

After all, how can one be blamed for such a passionate encounter when it is beyond your control? Women want to be controlled by such a creature, while men want to be that creature. That is the obvious appeal and origin of the evolution of the vampire myth.

Now we have the next step, a vampire who is willing to wait. One might ask, what's the point? Well, a vampire, theoretically immortal, can wait as long as he wants. A year would be like a day, or maybe even a second. Why not wait?

Well, the fact that he doesn't really have to says it all. Edward Cullen can have Bella any time he wants her. He knows that, and she knows that, but he chooses to wait, because he can do that too. She loves him from her heart, and her love for him is real, not coerced.

And that's just the thing that's guaranteed, at the hands of the right actor (with just the right looks, of course) to send millions of teenage girls (and middle-aged moms) into an escapist fantasy land that has probably moistened millions of panties over the last weekend, and will probably moisten millions of more in the months ahead.

And you can bet your bazookas there will be many millions of young teenage Goth boys playing the role of the angst-ridden teen vampire, or werewolf, with varying degrees of success, with young girls of all ages.

One fairly disturbing story relates how a Twilight fan was bitten on the neck, following repeated verbal abuse, by a middle-aged patron who sat behind her. I say fairly disturbing, because the story is, on the face of it, laughable, especially since the teeth marks she insisted the alleged predator inflicted on her seem to have vanished by the time she reported the incident. Was her story entirely made up? Was it just exaggerated? Was she really accosted in the way she describes? We may never know for sure, but I have my doubts.

One thing I don't doubt for a second is the potential here for mass hysteria that approaches anything the Beatles or Elvis ever dished out, and with the third highest opening of any movie (behind only Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight) it shows no sign of abating anytime soon.

(Putting on Asshole Hat)

Guys, make the most of this phenomenon. A good rule of thumb for things like this is, if you go about it the right way, you won't have to wait too long.

Pan-A God For All Nature's Children (Part Two)

(Continued from Part One here)

When Pan became the devil, it was an easy transition for him to make, when you consider it in the context of how the early Christians viewed the decadence and depravity in which Rome had slid. To their way of thinking, the image of the beast found its form in the personage and image of the hard-partying, lustful, amorous half-man, half-goat that was his image. Over time, the newly-acquired image of Satan lost the goat fur, while retaining the beard, horns, and sometimes even the tail.

Pan had the last laugh, however, for as time progressed, the image of the bawdy, raucous god was hardly taken seriously as an appropriate view of someone who, after all, was supposed to be the personification of pure evil.

So who, or what, in reality, was Pan? Depends on which myth you prefer, I guess you could say. Many, perhaps most, came to view him as the son of Hermes by the nymph Dryope, who ran from him in fear when he was first born, after which Hermes took him up into Olympus, where he delighted the gods, particularly Dionysius, with whom he became more closely associated with than even Hermes.

Although, to be fair, Hermes did give him one other gift. He taught to Pan the "art" of masturbation. It was a gift that would serve him in good stead, seeing as to how the nymphs of the forest constantly spurned his advances, and as to how desperate became the god's on-going search for sex, with-well, seemingly anything and everything.



There is another version of his origins that would seem to predate those of the major gods. According to this one, Pan was the son of the goat Amalthea, who may be a symbol of the mythical "Great Mother". This female deity, whose origins are in fact obscure, was charged with the care of the infant Zeus, when the latter's mother, Rhea, hid the newborn infant from his father, the ragingly suspicious Cronus, who sought to swallow all his children as soon as they were born.

Amalthea cared for the future Father of Gods and Men as though he were her own, though in fact she had a son of her own-Goat Pan, who would later assist Zeus and his brethren in their ultimately successful war against Cronus and the Titans.

In fact, though Pan is not known primarily as a God of War, it is in this context that he is associated with Dionysius-as a general during the God's wars against the Indians.

Chiefly, though, Pan seems to have originally been a God of the Aracadian forests, where he was worshiped as a god of shepherds, which may have been the chief reason he became identified throughout Greece as a "son of Hermes". Additionally, there may have been a desire to subordinate the popular, well loved God below those of the major pantheon. What better way to do this than to name him as the son of one of these pantheon members?

The Arcadians were relatively uncivilized, and may have led not only a mere pastoral existence, but one of subsistence farming. They may have even been hunter-gatherers to a large degree, though they were certainly goat herds, and may have operated small, subsistence level farms such as what one might find in the hills of southeastern Kentucky.

Though they were hunters and shepherds, and Pan was chiefly their god in these regards, he would have by virtue of these attributes also been seen as a fertility god. And, since the Greeks came to see the Arcadians as backwards, rough, and unsophisticated louts, with low morals if any, and of a lustful disposition, then naturally one of their major deities would easily be seen in this light as well.

Thus we see Pan in myths chasing after first one nymph, then another, constantly undergoing rejection after rejection. He was said to have even created the Panpipes from the wood of a nymph who was so terrified of his advances, she turned herself into a tree. Pan did not give up easily, however, nor did he limit his advances to mere nymphs. In the following photo, we see him trying not too subtly to seduce Aphrodite herself, while her son Eros looks on in seeming amusement.



And of course, as homosexuality was common in Greece, especially among the upper classes, it would come as no surprise to see that Pan is depicted as unrestrained in his sexual passions, as depicted in the photo below.



In reality, of course, the true meaning of the god Pan is obvious from his appearance. He is a fertility god, and represents the very natural urge towards procreation that exists within all living things. We humans like to see ourselves as so far above the animal world, but a person with a true sense of discernment can easily see that we have more in common with them than just eyes and ears. The sex drive, in fact, is perhaps the more uneasily restrained, the hardest tamed, of all the animal urges that all living things share, including humans.

One way in which humans relieve themselves is through masturbation, which would have been indulged heartily and unabashedly so by the Arcadian shepherds as they spent weeks on end tending their flocks. Indeed, this is an "art" that does not need to be taught. Rather, it is picked up quite naturally, with no need for instruction or encouragement. Yet, it too is something of which we are taught we should be ashamed. In fact, if you have ever been caught doing it, say by a parent, you might remember that shame came about quite naturally as well. You might have felt it before the unfortunately intruding parent ever opened his or her mouth.

But, if there is anything to learn from Pan, it should be the realization that, while the sexual urges should be restrained, controlled, and channeled, they are in and of themselves nothing to be ashamed of. They are the natural urge by which through procreation all species of life survive through multiple succeeding generations.

The irony is, no one needs to be taught that fact any more than they need to be taught the act of masturbation, or the instinct of shame when they are caught doing it. Sexuality, and the need for it as a form of release and as a means of procreation, and even the need to keep it within definable boundaries, are all so instinctual, any attempts to keep it under further restraints are doomed to failure, at best. At worse, it can lead to a repressed individual, or even a repressed society.

Then, when the lid blows off the kettle, so to speak, you eventually have the same degree of decadence and sexual promiscuity that plagued the ancient Romans, as things once again go full circle. An example of such is seen below in the painting, by the excellent French artist Nicholas Poussin, titled The Triumph of Pan.



It is easy enough to answer the question, why a half man half goat? After all, there was more than one fertility god. Zeus himself was a fertility god. So was Demeter, and Dionysius, and of course Aphrodite. There were others, such as Priapus, who, as the short, fat, hideously ugly god with the monstrously huge penis, stood more for the dangers of unrestrained lust that recognized no boundaries, not even the boundaries of matrimony.

Pan, however, was unique in his own way as possibly the most ancient God who pointed out the common urge and need to procreate that existed within all living things, an urge shared by humans and animals alike.

In Greece, it so happened that goats were the most important form of livestock. Few people raised cattle. It was either too expensive, or the land was for the most part unsuited to raising them. As such, most people very seldom ate beef, unless it was during times of communal festivals in honor of one God or another. Almost no one aside from the rich elites of some areas consumed cattle.

The most common meat eaten by common Greeks of the day would have been either goat or sheep, and as such, this was probably the most common livestock. Therefore, it would make sense that a God of fertility, one who celebrated the instinct of procreation, would be seen in the form of a goat.

This in fact is why I prefer the myths pointing to Amalthea as his mother over the rather whimsical one of Hermes as his father. Pan might in fact be a much older God than we realize, and at one time might have been far more important, during the days of the Mycenaeans, than the myths concurrent with the times of Classical Greece would attest. There is just no way of knowing. We don't really know for sure where his worship originated, beyond Arcady. The Mount Ida mentioned as the place where Zeus was raised by Amalthea seems not to exist, but it could point to an origin in the Carpathians, or maybe even the Caucasus or Urals.

All we know is, thanks to Pan, the poor old goat has gotten a bad rap. How many times have you heard an older, allegedly lecherous man referred to as an "old goat"? You can thank Pan for that. Of course, goats are no more lecherous than any other living creature, including many humans. The point is, we all have that basic, instinctual drive, and perhaps the fact that we do, and that it is such a powerful drive, even an overwhelming one at times, is what makes us so ashamed. It makes is realize we are animals after all, doesn't it?

One way to attune with this instinct, and with Pan, might well be through the ritual act of masturbation. It is certainly an intense way of raising and sending magical energy. The utilization of visualization while doing so might well bring beneficial results. At the very least, it could help you to see your place within the universal "All". Many pagans, especially Wiccans, advise against visualizing a specific person, something I never agreed with, nor could I ever comprehend it, for the simple reason you can not control another person magically. You can, however, get in touch with your true feelings, and maybe, by allowing yourself to see clearly just what it is that is driving your feelings towards the "nymph" of your dreams, you can-er, "come to grips" with it in a positive way. When you masturbate, and you fantasize about someone in particular, note the setting you see yourself in, how you see the person dressed, how he or she acts, how you act as you lead up to engaging in sexual activity, and what exactly you do, and how you-and the other person-reacts in your dreams.

More importantly, how do you see yourself in your visualizations? Or do you even see yourself at all? Do you actually consummate the act of fornication, or are you thrilled merely by the chase, by the making out, the lead-in? What is it that is thrilling you about this person, and why?

You might want to keep a journal. Call it what you will. "My Jackoff Book", I guess.

It might also be a way of reigniting a relationship that seems to be withering away, a way of restoring the magic. Remember, Pan is the patron of those who are beleaguered by feelings of love and lust that are not reciprocated. He understands, so pour him a libation, of wine or milk, or anything handy. Even if you don't believe in the literal existence of this or any God, the ritual act itself, and the symbolic importance of acknowledgment of the personification of the universal sex drive is what is important for the successful conduction of any such magical endeavor as this one.

In the meantime, look for all the ways the God might manifest himself to you in your life. If you find yourself getting a sudden, unexpected, and inconvenient erection at the sight of a good looking woman as she smiles at you while flashing her legs in your direction in an obviously suggestive manner, or if your pet dog suddenly starts humping your girlfriends leg in front of the whole family, thank Pan for the laughs-even if you do feel they are at your expense. Somebody might be trying to tell you something.

The Story of Pan

At the risk of making it seem like the name of this blog should be The Temple Of Pan, here is a YouTube video recently sent to me by Farmer John, or FJ, who has the excellent blog FJ's Blog (Farmer's Letters on my blogroll), where he keeps track of events in Venezuela and other places south of the border.

This is a Greek video which tells a version of the story of Pan to the accompaniment of a charming piece of music I can imagine would have fit right in during the hey day of Pan's cult.

Hymn To Pan-by Aleister Crowley

Until I get around to posting part two of my Pan article, this will serve as a pretty good example of how Pan is seen today by some of his followers. He always had a cult following as a fertility god that probably-though we don't really know for sure-engaged in ritual sex, but mainly he was a hunting god, chiefly of the region of Arcady, which Crowley mentions in this poem. He was also a god of shepherds and their flocks. As a god of what was basically a backward region made up of shepherds, hard scrabble farmers, and hunters-gatherers, it would be only natural that he would be invoked as a fertility god, and while he was probably invoked for (and by way of) sexual methods, I personally feel this was a minor aspect in the early days of his worship, certainly within his home region of Arcady. His reputation as a god of animal lust spread throughout the rest of Greece, and it was that aspect that obviously served as the inspiration for Crowley's following poem.

Hymn To Pan (Crowley)

Thrill with lissome lust of the light,
O man ! My man !
Come careering out of the night
Of Pan ! Io Pan .
Io Pan ! Io Pan ! Come over the sea
From Sicily and from Arcady !
Roaming as Bacchus, with fauns and pards
And nymphs and styrs for thy guards,
On a milk-white ass, come over the sea
To me, to me,
Coem with Apollo in bridal dress
(Spheperdess and pythoness)
Come with Artemis, silken shod,
And wash thy white thigh, beautiful God,
In the moon, of the woods, on the marble mount,
The dimpled dawn of of the amber fount !
Dip the purple of passionate prayer
In the crimson shrine, the scarlet snare,
The soul that startles in eyes of blue
To watch thy wantoness weeping through
The tangled grove, the gnarled bole
Of the living tree that is spirit and soul
And body and brain -come over the sea,
(Io Pan ! Io Pan !)
Devil or god, to me, to me,
My man ! my man !
Come with trumpets sounding shrill
Over the hill !
Come with drums low muttering
From the spring !
Come with flute and come with pipe !
Am I not ripe ?
I, who wait and writhe and wrestle
With air that hath no boughs to nestle
My body, weary of empty clasp,
Strong as a lion, and sharp as an asp-
Come, O come !
I am numb
With the lonely lust of devildom.
Thrust the sword through the galling fetter,
All devourer, all begetter;
Give me the sign of the Open Eye
And the token erect of thorny thigh
And the word of madness and mystery,
O pan ! Io Pan !
Io Pan ! Io Pan ! Pan Pan ! Pan,
I am a man:
Do as thou wilt, as a great god can,
O Pan ! Io Pan !
Io pan ! Io Pan Pan ! Iam awake
In the grip of the snake.
The eagle slashes with beak and claw;
The gods withdraw:
The great beasts come, Io Pan ! I am borne
To death on the horn
Of the Unicorn.
I am Pan ! Io Pan ! Io Pan Pan ! Pan !
I am thy mate, I am thy man,
Goat of thy flock, I am gold , I am god,
Flesh to thy bone, flower to thy rod.
With hoofs of steel I race on the rocks
Through solstice stubborn to equinox.
And I rave; and I rape and I rip and I rend
Everlasting, world without end.
Mannikin, maiden, maenad, man,
In the might of Pan.
Io Pan ! Io Pan Pan ! Pan ! Io Pan !

Aleister Crowley