First Draft

War on the Modern World

Go for it. Just go for it. Burn it all down. Pile everything you've ever said was important to you in the street, douse it in gasoline, and let the blaze light up the sky. 

This puts it all on the table. Republicans and Catholics and Republican Catholics and Republicans who just say they're Catholic and Catholics who are Republican because abortion seems yucky are now all just going to have to say it now. 

They would rather lots and lots of women die from preventable conditions, too many unwanted children, and abortions that should never have to happen, than that they have to put up with the thought that some woman somewhere is making her own decisions regarding who she has sex with and when. 

I got news for a lot of people what think this is some kind of winning argument about religious freedom for Catholics. Catholic women have memories of the battle over the Pill and the issuance of Humanae Vitae the first time around.

For instance, the Belgian bishops stated: "Someone, however, who is competent in the matter under consideration and capable of forming a personal and well-founded judgment--which necessarily presupposes a sufficient amount of knowledge--may, after a serious examination before God, come to other conclusions on certain points. In such a case he has the right to follow his conviction provided that he remains sincerely disposed to continue his inquiry." Of those who arrived at conclusions differ­ent from Humanae Vitae, the Scandinavian bishops stat­ed: "No one should, therefore, on account of such diverg­ing opinions alone, be regarded as an inferior Catholic." The Canadian bishops made a similar statement: ’These Catholics should not be considered, or consider them­selves, shut off from the body of the faithful."

Catholic women remember the woman in the pew next to them in church, dragging 13 children behind her, her husband dead or gone and no help at hand. They remember the neighbor who died in childbirth because her doctor was bound by faith to save her baby at all costs. They remember the relative whose husband defied the hospital's orders to make sure there were no more children, who suffered horribly before the end. They remember their own miscarriages, stillbirths, when God wanted them to have just one more baby, at the age of 45 in 1953.

And those were the married women who wanted the children they had. Those were the ones doing it right, in the eyes of the more conservative bishops and members of the church. That was the fate due the good girls. I don't need to go over what happened to the bad ones, and what we remember about them. 

So go ahead, tell those women that a condom is cause for excommunication. Tell those women that the greatest threat to their liberty is some other lady in their health plan getting the pill for free. Tell those women, who lost their sisters, who lost their aunts, who lost their mothers, who saw the women around them worn out and rubbed down to nothing, that they don't have the right to painlessly, reasonably ensure that they live to care for the family they want. Let's have that fight. Let's haul out all the arguments. 

Let's talk about how God really wants our infant mortality rate to skyrocket. Let's talk about how many women, exactly, God wants dead. Let's make adherence to a rule of the modern world the be-all and end-all test of who is a true believer. That's never gone horribly wrong before. 

Let's have that fight, because there's no way it goes the way the bishops think it's going to go. This is the late Cardinal Avery Dulles, writing in 1968: 

In view of the American tradition of freedom and pluralism, it would be a serious mistake to use the encyclical as a kind of Catholic loyalty test. Nothing could so quickly snuff out the spirit of per­sonal responsibility, which has done so much to invigorate American Catholicism in the past few years.

Nothing could be more discouraging to young people and intellectuals, upon whom the future of our Church so greatly depends. Nothing could be more destructive of the necessary autonomy of Catholic universities and journals, which have begun to prosper so well. Nothing, finally, could be more harmful to the mutual relations of trust and cordiality that have recently been established between bishops and theologians.

He could have been speaking directly to the bishops and their power-hungry enablers in Congress today. Have that fight. Go ahead. You won't like the outcome. I've been saying for years that our vicious abortion politics are burning down everything else the Church has ever considered important, and this? This is like throwing a bottle of lighter fluid onto the kindling before striking the match. 

A. 

The long arm of the law, in your uterus

I feel more empowered already.

"Today's ruling is a victory for all who stand in defense of life. Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy, and this important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-ending decision. We will continue to fight any attempt to limit our state's laws that value and protect the unborn."

We will, however, continue to dismantle and destroy those laws and systems that value and protect living children. Once they're born, those little suckers are on their own

Happy Hanukkah!

A.

Headline of the day

It comes from the Telegraph in the UK:

'Harry Potter and yoga are evil' says Catholic Church exorcist

I wonder what Tom Wilkinson and Max Von Sydow would say about this story...

Jeez, Timmeh

The Tebowmaniacs are at it again, y'all. As an atheist I cannot call this blasphemous but tacky is tacky is tacky:

I traded a few emails with Scout yesterday about this idiocy, which inspires me to ask this question: what would you put on the back of a Tebow jersey?

I'd put: Malaka.

Jindal blows a gaping hole in Perry's waterline even wider

 

All right - excuse me for getting out of my box, but I don't see this anywhere else on the interwebz. It made me choke on my ham, onion, and jalapeno omelette.

The MTP bobbleheads had the surrogates for Romney and Perry on this morning, and the subject turned to the M-word:

(Gregory) There’s this issue of”Governor Romney is a Mormon”, this has become an issue in the campaign, pastor Robery Jeffress introduced Rick Perry and said the following:

 (clip runs)

(Jefferson) “So we want a candidate who s a good, moral person? Or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ? Mitt Romney is a good, moral person – but he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity, yet it’s always been considered historically to be a cult by evangelical Christians,”

(clip ends)

 (Gregory) Has Governor Perry satisfactorily distanced himself from this pastor in Governor Romney’s mind?

 (Pawlenty) Well, in my view, David, it’s disappointing that Governor Perry and others who didn’t denounce pastor Jeffress and those comments more directly, We have a country where we don’t have prohibitions on a particular church attendance for public office. In fact, it’s prohibited in the U.S. Constitution.

 (Gregory) Governor Jindal, are you disappointed in Governor Perry? Have you told him he should more formally denounce…

 (Jindal) I don’t think it’s for any of us to judge somebody else’s religious views, their relationship with God. The Bible is very clear, that’s up to God, not us. (…) It’s not for any of us to judge somebody’s faith, relationship to God, I think that would be inappropriate. The Bible is very clear, that’s not our role.

OK.

Pawlenty says that religious tests are against the Constitution, and Jindal says the answers are RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE!!!

Even Perry has to be doing a facepalm over this one.

Quote of the day

It comes from a post by the Guardian's Andrew Brown about Mitt Haircut's Mormonism:

Modern public Mormons are almost parodically conformist and technocratic. The public image of Mitt Romney is not of a man who holds strange beliefs that he will act on if elected, but the opposite – a man who has no principles whatsoever, and almost no personality. Abstinent, frugal, hard-working and rich, the Mormons have moved from the fringe of American life to its centre – not least because their religion is so intensely American. Whether or not it's crazy, it has worked.

NOLA Potpourri for $200, Alex

October is my favorite month of the year in New Orleans. The heat finally breaks and the chances of a tropical system starts to diminish. It's also been a very newsy few weeks here so I thought I'd share.

The big story right now is the passing of former Archbishop Philip Hannan at the advanced age of 98. Hannan was a larger than life figure. He was a chaplain with the 82nd Airborne in World War II and jumped with his flock thereby earning a series of nicknames, my favorite being the Parachuting Padre. Holy Father Mulcahy, Batman.

Hannan hasn't been the head holy joe in NOLA since 1988 but he's stayed around and enjoyed a busy retirement. His other claim to fame is that he was close to the Kennedy family: he married Jack and Jackie and officiated at JFK, RFK and Jackie O's funerals. The tourists have been pumping me for info about Hannan and it's easy to tell who the Democrats are: they're impressed by that detail, the Goopers shrug and say "whatever." Hannan hewed to the church party line on issues involving sexual politics but preferred talking about the church's stands on social justice. On the debit side, he buried his head in the sand when it came to perv priests but managed to get through that with his popularity intact.

Yesterday there was a procession that brought Archbishop Hannan's body 4 miles from a seminary Uptown to St Louis Cathedral. I popped out and saw the end of this funereal promenade and it was quite a sight. The tourists were quite interested and astonishingly well-behaved. The Archdiocese's public teevee station, WLAE, has had a macabre video stream up showing the viewing of Hannan's open casket. I *hate* open coffin funerals; especially when the deceased was elderly and frail. Somebody should have called the Fisher brothers...

I'd originally planned to write about other NOLA news but there's a shop to be tended and stuff to be sold so it's time for me to STFU for now.

Rapture Rupture

As a confirmed atheist,  I think the single dumbest thing about evangelical Christianity is the rapture aka armageddon, which is not to be confused with carmageddon even if the two are equally stupid. The latest poll of GOP primary nutters voters is pretty darn interesting: not only is Michelle Bachmann in the lead nationally BUT PPP asked voters the following question:

This is patent nonsense but good news nonetheless: when the fake rapture happens, Sarah Palin will be whisked away to wherever the hell these dipshits go. Then we won't have to hear about her any more. That's almost enough to make me want to wait for the end of the world:

 

Those zany Mormons

I hold no brief for Mormons: if I see two tall white guys wearing clip-on ties and riding bikes in my neighborhood, I run for cover. I don't, however, think that LDS views are any sillier than those of Baptists, Hindus or Rastafarians. As an atheist, I find most religious beliefs to be somewhat absurd BUT I find it fascinating that folks who take the Bible literally think that Mormons are some weird cult ala the People's Temple or the Manson family. Sure, LDSers have some odd views but they're no stranger than immaculate conception or creationism.

I stumbled upon the clip below at Kevin Drum's blog. It's a zany/wacky take on what Memphians think of Mormons and Mitt Haircut. It even includes a man on the street segment:

 

Other than Islam, I find it inconceivable that a local teevee news show would mock any religion. They should leave such mockery to internet wise asses and Bill Maher. It *almost* makes me feel bad for Mitt Romney. Almost.

There are many reason to oppose Romney's White House bid but his religion isn't one of them. I wouldn't vote for him because he's a Republican but I'd consider voting for LSDers such as the Udall cousins. In fact, I was a great admirer of the late Congressman Mo Udall who was one of the wittiest people to ever run for President. Mo was indeed a member of a cult: progressive Mormons.

Louisiana Lege Lowdown

The Louisiana Lege is in session and passing stupid laws, which is what they do. Our statewide politics have taken on a somewhat surreal quality: Governor PBJ is thus far unopposed for re-election but keeps losing key votes in the Lege on issues that matter to him. PBJ, however, is lucky in his enemies: the Louisiana Democratic party is in disarray and barely even exists any more. That means that PBJ can pander and fast talk his way to re-election whilst delusions of the White House dance in his feverish little mind.

The good news for PBJ is that the House just passed an initiative that he supports and the vote was unanimous as it's likely to be in the Senate as well. It red lights-you guessed it-a Ten Commandments thingamabob to be displayed on the state capitol grounds. It's, alas, based on the Texas monument that the Supremes okayed in 2005. Our Lege usually doesn't bother with such niceties when it comes to religion and pandering to the biblethumpers.

I have a friend who used to be a Louisiana State Senator back in the days when there still were some White populist/progressive Democrats in the Lege. He was an agnostic but shocked the hell out of me when he voted for a creationism measure. He explained to me that you could "never vote against God and get away with it. The peckerwoods would put your private parts in a vise and squeeze tight. Besides, the federal courts will shoot this dumbshit bill down."

That's what happened to the 1980's version of the "creation science" bill. Unfortunately, times have changed and the Roberts court will accept almost anything that's dolled up in "secular purpose" drag. The courts are unwilling to "vote against God" now either.

It's a pity that the right wing Catholics among the Supremes have forgotten that laws aimed at their faith used to exist in some of the more exuberantly Protestant parts of the country. Al Smith did poorly in the then solid Democratic South because people thought that his election would put the Pope in the White House. Now right wing Catholics and evangelicals are allies in Louisiana and elsewhere, which could be evidence to refute evolution since we're marching backwards instead of evolving.

I'll let Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond have the last word:

 

The Case Of The Foiled Moil

Dicks are still in the news. There's an effort in San Francisco and Santa Monica to ban via the ballot box male circumcision as a form of mutilation. I'm not sure what I think of this but there are some Rabbis who are rabid about the issue. Many moils are in turmoil as well...

Well, they vote on everything in my home state so why not this?  California may be low on money right now but there may be an excess of foreskins very soon...

And I haven't even started on the briss jokes...

Quote of the day

Texas Governor Rick Perry used to talk secession but now he's got Potomac fever. He's doing the big pander to the religious right in Texas by telling everyone to ask Jesus for rain. (We're having a drought too so I kinda expect PBJ to call an exorcist or something.) Here's Ricky:

"there is hope for America ... and we will find it on our knees."

I gotta say this is one of the best straight line I've seen in a long time. Anyone have any wisecracks to share? Btw, if I saw Rick Perry on his knees I'd dub him Sir Malaka...

Malakas Of The Week: The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops

It's institutional malakatude time again here at First Draft. The Catholic Bishops have issued their long awaited report on pervy pedophile priests. Do they blame celibacy? Hell, no. They blame hippies like Wavy Gravy and Woodstock, man.

The report says, the abuse occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s.

Known occurrences of sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, the report found, and the problem grew worse when the church’s hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims.

The “blame Woodstock” explanation has been floated by bishops since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002 and by Pope Benedict XVI after it erupted in Europe in 2010.

Hmm, I wonder what kind of weed the authors of the report were smoking: I want some, man.

This is a ridiculous conclusion that lets the Bishopric (apt image, no?) off the hook. My theory is that celibacy and sexual repression were the primary causes. Imagine a very religious young man who finds himself turned on by other men; something that is verboten under Catholic doctrine. He struggles against his desires and realizes that there's no better place to repress sexual longings than the priesthood. Some of those young men had genuinely perverse desires to repress but not according to the lawyers who wrote the report:

In one of the most counterintuitive findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.

“Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests,’ ” the report says.

That finding is likely to prove controversial, in part because the report employs a definition of “prepubescent” children as those age 10 and under. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. If the John Jay researchers had used that cutoff, a vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent.

This is not a "report" it is an argument on behalf of the Bishops. That's right, the same men who either stuck their heads in the sand, looked the other way or actively covered up for pervy padres. The Bishops continue to allow their need to defend themselves from litigation to overwhelm their pastoral duties to their parishioners.

The only positive thing I can say about the "report" is that at least it doesn't blame same-sexuality, which some members of the Catholic clergy and laity are prone to do. The whole thing reeks of malakatude of the most odious kind.

I'm not Catholic but my wife is and we live in a very Catholic city. Dr. A stopped going to mass because she got tired of being hectored by Opus Dei-style right wing priests on hot button social issues like abortion instead of hearing about social justice and protecting the weakest members of society such as children. Of course, our former Archbishop Alfred Hughes helped run the pervy priests cover-up for Cardinal Law in Boston so what else could we expect?

Finally, back to the preposterous imagery that this report planted in my brain: blame it on Woodstock. If that's the case perhaps the Bishops need a new logo: something along the lines of the keep on truckin' guy in a cassock holding a lighter whose flame forms a cross with the Woodstock logo in the background. That would be silly but no sillier than this report's passing the buck from the Church to hippies and free love. Bollocks.

It's time for the Bishops to face the music instead dancing around the truth:

 

 

 

Malaka Of The Week: Metropolitan Seraphim Of Piraeus

This week's malaka with other bearded dudes. He's the one who talks loudly *and* carries a big stick.

I like naming a malaka of the week who knows from malakatude. This week's "honoree" is, in fact, a Greek Orthodox Bishop who is a real Greek and a bona fide bearded malaka, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus. I was raised in the American Greek Orthodox Church and the Priests I knew as a kid were mostly bleeding hearts who marched with Dr. King and against the Vietnam War. The Greek Greek Church is a different kettle of fish altogether. Exhibit A is Metropolitan Malaka who blames Greece's financial meltdown on the Jews:

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that the bishop “said that there is a conspiracy to enslave Greece and Christian Orthodoxy. He also accused international Zionism of trying to destroy the family unit by promoting one-parent families and same-sex marriages.”

According to the news agency, when the bishop was then asked, “Why do you disagree with Hitler’s policies? If they are doing all this, wasn’t he right in burning them?” he replied: “Adolf Hitler was an instrument of world Zionism and was financed from the renowned Rothschild family with the sole purpose of convincing the Jews to leave the shores of Europe and go to Israel to establish the new Empire.” He added that Jewish bankers like “Rockefeller, Rothschild and Soros control the international banking system that controls globalization.”

The Rockefellers are Jewish? Who knew? Also, Seraphim the Beard's information is rather out of date: the Rockefellers are no longer at the center of the worldwide conspiracy against clerics with more hair than sense. He needs to upgrade his tinfoil hat...

It makes me wonder what Metropolitan Malaka wears under his cassock. Could it be a teabag? He certainly sounds a lot like some of the crazier American wingnuts such as Gret Stet Fuhrer wannabe David Duke. The whole international Zionist conspiracy shit is tired and trite but, apparently, so is Metropolitan Malaka.

This bearded twit is also a rabid homphobe, which is ironic given that he's bejeweled and wears a dress albeit a long, scratchy and unattractive one. Check this rant out:

Earlier this year, the bishop wrote to Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II to demand that Elton John be stripped of his knighthood for telling Parade magazine, “Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man.” The bishop also complained to Britain’s ambassador to Greece about the singer’s “unacceptable and absurd” comment, which, he said, had caused “deep pain and bitterness.”

I wonder if this bearded boob doth protest too much. Who the hell takes either Parade Magazine or  Reg Dwight's knighthood this seriously? Unless, that is, they're headline hunting, which seems to be the Metropolitan's racket.

His bailiwick is Piraeus, which is the largest port in Greece. It makes me wonder if he's a Hellenic Ted Haggard who has been known to say "hey, sailor." That's, of course, rank speculation of the sort that the Piraeus putz traffics in but what's a little rank speculation among friends?

Stumbling into this story has me contemplating dressing up as Seraphim for Mardi Gras. I think I have a long black cassocky thing and can easily obtain black whiskers. It could be a deeply scary costume; especially if I can get my hands on one of the incense shaker things that Orthodox priests use quite promiscuously during mass. Of course, nobody will get it; particularly because everyone thinks Seraphim is an angel and not a malaka. From beatitude to malakatude in a matter of minutes...

Malaka Of The Week: Bryan Fischer

I didn't write a malaka of the week post last week but the malakatude kept rolling. This week's winner is some hairbag I'd never heard of before but Bryan Fischer is a class-A malaka and worthy of this "honor."  This douchebag is the "issues" director of the American Family Association and he's also a guy who puts the ass in association.

While the rest of America celebrated the heroism and humility of Medal of Honor winner Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, Mr. Fischer slammed the selection in a post at his AFA blog:

We have feminized the Medal of Honor. According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.

Gen. George Patton once famously said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his." [Note: Patton either said bastard or son of a bitch. He was a cussing General. So, fuck you for misquoting him, Malaka Fischer.]

When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements.  That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them.

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night? I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery. We know instinctively that we should honor courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of life rather than in just the saving of life. So we find it safe to honor those who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.

I would suggest, sir that you're a buffoon, idiot and, above all else, a malaka. I looked up Fischer's bio and was "shocked" to learn that he's another in a long line of blood thirsty chickenhawks with no military record. It's very easy for an armchair warrior like Fischer to prattle on about the glory of killing when he's never had to aim a weapon at anyone in his life. Neither have I but I have enough sense to know that when soldiers are in the field they're fighting for their own lives and those of their comrades. If someone in your unit is killed, a part of you dies as well.

My father was a World War II veteran. He hated war and refused to discuss his war time experiences. I wish that he had but I know that whatever he went through was so painful that he had no interest in reliving it. He was a conservative Republican BUT hated guns and wouldn't allow one in our house. He was an Army interpreter so I don't know if he ever had to shoot at anyone but he thought war was a horrible thing that should only be waged when all else failed. I guess Malaka Fischer would consider that a sign of creeping feminization. I call it humanity. Of course, the only human life that creeps like him value is in vitro.

I have a pretty good idea of where the Bryan Fischers, Newt Gingriches and Dick Cheneys of the world got their sick and twisted notions about the "glory" of war: John Wayne movies. Guess what guys, John Wayne was a chickenhawk who dodged the draft in World War II and stayed in Hollywood to further his film career. Wayne spent the rest of his life overcompensating for this by being a rabid war lover, which is why his influence on "manly" rightwingers is so ironic. 

The most fascinating thing about Malaka Fischer's attack on Sgt. Giunta is that the latter is everything a hero should be. He's modest, humble and self-sacrificing. He melted my icy blue heart when he said that he'd give up the medal in a heartbeat if he could bring his fallen friends back to life. That's the stuff that real heroes are made of. To extend, and perhaps even strain, the cinematic analogy, Sgt. Giunta reminds me of Gary Cooper as Sgt. York, a soft spoken pacifist turned warrior whose heroism was motivated by the desire to protect his brothers in arms. We need more modest Gary Coopers and fewer strutting John Waynes in the world as well as more men like Salvatore Giunta and fewer malakas like Bryan Fischer.

Someone Put A Guard In The Basilica of St. Clare In Assisi

'Cause S&M Jesus is at risk from morons like this.

(Ripped off from Cole's place.)

Come Together Goes To Church?

Here's a clip that's floating around the interweb of a preacher performing John Lennon's nonsense dadalike tune, Come Together, at some mega-church in Plymouth, Michigan. Hey maybe that's it: when I think Plymouth I think of the rock and the Beatles were rockers. Hallelujah. Wait a darn minute, I'm still confused:

 

WTF are they on about? The lyrics are highfalutin gibberish a la Jabberwocky. Praise be to Brothers John, George, Ringo and Macca. Woo.

Via Bill Corbett of MST3K and Rifftrax's twitter feed.

This weird use of a Beatle song and all the Jesus posts here yesterday, implanted an earworm but it's not Come Together. Instead, it's a Lennon tune that features this lyrical refrain: "Christ you know it ain't easy, you know how hard it can be. The way things are going they're gonna crucify me."

 

 

Jesus With Boobs? Seriously?

That's Jesus with boobs. Folks, it only goes downhill from here.

So I'm sure all of you good people read our Lord and Savior Athenae's post below; if you haven't, shame on you.  Also say 20 Hail Lombardis, and think about what you haven't done.  It turns out that some religious dopes you'll never meet are outraged that some art gallery you've never heard of in a town you'll never visit is daring--daring!--to show something that might not validate all of their stupid religious beliefs.

For the life of me, I don't know how a crowd of these god-botherers isn't following me around every day.  I can't go 30 minutes without "disgrac[ing] the God of all creation."  I have toothpicks made from the True Cross.  I use the shroud of Turin as a piddle pad for dogs.  I'd use Bible pages for toilet paper, but those gilt edges will give you cuts you can't believe in places you don't want 'em.  And that's just what I do for Christians.  Before breakfast.  On Tuesday.

Anyway, I don't know what they're bitching about.  Their religion and their god is a lot freakier than depicted in those photos.  And I don't mean that vanilla shit like hanging out with hookers.  That's what I do after breakfast.  On Tuesday.  It's quite routine, and there's nothing scandalous about it.  No, I'm talking about some pretty serious S&M.  From hairshirts to flagellants to straight-out martyrs, Christians have been into serious S&M and bondage shit for two millennia now.  Think about that.  For longer than Catholic priests have been raping little boys, Christians have been all about emulating suffering, and what do they call the feeling they get when they've suffered enough?  Ecstasy.  I mean, they're not even trying to hide it.  Of course, it's not like they're not taking their cues from the guy who kicked off the whole party, either.  Check this shit out:

 

If this doesn't get Bill Donohue after me, I don't know what will.

That is the Cross of San Damiano, courtesy of Wikipedia.  Like all medieval representations of Jesus, it is 100% accurate.  Take a good look at Jeebus there.  Above the loincloth.  I'll wait.

 

 

Holy shit!  Did you see that?  I think they crucified him because they were scared of his dick! 

That Jesus was into the wildest-ass masochism this side of the women who vote Republican.  Forget "why did you forsake me;" this guy was saying "Father, forgive them, because this has me hotter than the Fourth of July.  Which hasn't been invented yet."

So I don't know what these people are so upset about.  The image they're pissed at is tamer than what might as well be a photograph of their god.  Is that the problem, after all?  "This is an outrage--our god was WAY kinkier than that!"

Damn.  If that's so, I've been way too harsh with these people.  Maybe they're alright, after all.

More Evidence That Derpity Derp Derp

Om mani padme durr.

Greetings, everyone.  First, I begin with a story.  Is it a story of awesomeness?  Naturally.

I work for the state, in the unemployment program.  So, as I've noted, these days I'm busier than a three-legged cat trying to cover up a turd on a frozen pond.  That aside, the unemployment law in Wisconsin is some complicated shit.  There are entire categories of employment that, should you get laid off, aren't covered by the unemployment system; that is, if you work as, say, a caddy on a golf course, and you find yourself out of that job through no fault of your own, you don't get shit from the state.  One of these exclusions--Section 108.02(15)(h)1, for those of you who care--states that anyone "In the employ of a church or convention or association of churches" is excluded from receiving unemployment benefits based on that work.

Well, recently, at a training session (not conducted by me) on this law, someone asked why that was the case.  My answer, jokingly, was "Because it's not really work."

And everyone laughed.

Because it was a joke.

Well, almost everyone.  One woman got all out of sorts and said "My husband is a minister," to which I replied "I'm sorry to hear that."  She got even pissier and clammed up.  At lunch, she came up to me, still pissy, and said "I'm still mad about what you said."

Me:  "I thought you people were supposed to turn the other cheek."

Her:  "I'm used to dealing with people like you--the ignorance-"

Me:  "Slow down.  Don't confuse mockery and contempt with ignorance."

And that was the end of that.

Why do I bring this up?  Good question.  As you've no doubt seen, a recent Pew poll has been making the rounds.  And there's been a lot of triumphal bleating from many non-religious types, who I'd normally agree with, that atheists/agnostics know a lot more about religion than the religious types do.  PZ Myers, for example, whose work I really dig, gives us the following ridiculous post title:  "Want to know about religion?  Go to your local atheist, not your priest."  Which, and keep in mind I am a big fan of his blog, is just stupid.  They weren't polling priests, they were polling the general populace. But I digress.

Yes, atheists and agnostics did score higher than any other group.  But keep in mind that, though Pew had an absolutely gigantic sample size--3412 people (as you'd expect when they're trying to get good data on so many sub-groups).  Even though they got pretty large sub-groups, the margins of error go up as the groups get smaller.  For example, the MoE for atheists/agnostics is a whopping 8.5%.  So, you know, the parameters for atheists/agnostics in the general population could vary quite a bit from the statistics gathered this sample.  The results of the poll are here (warning--big-ass PDF).  Sadly, there are no cross-tabs.  At any rate, you can't really claim that this poll robustly demonstrates that atheists/agnostics (who had to be lumped together 'cause there weren't enough straight atheists to make even wild inferences from) are vastly superior to theists in knowledge of religious bullshit.

But let's leave that aside for a moment.  Consider this:  That poll (smaller PDF of whole thing, without results, here) is preposterously fucking easy, and it's almost all multiple fucking choice.  And people still fucked it up.  And when I say "people," I mean "everyfuckingbody who took this goddamn thing."  If this were a test, the highest grade (again, the 212 atheists/agnostics) would be at the head of the class with 65% correct.  Now, depending on where you went to school, that's a D or an F.  Big fuckin' bragging rights there, chief.  Just two fucking percent of all respondents got 29 or more of the questions correct--that's 90.6%.  Overall, it's just a piss-poor showing.  I mean, 34% of the people who call themselves Christian couldn't name the first fucking book of the Bible.  The first one!  Nobody was asking what number 34 is  (it's Nahum if you're a Christian).  And a full 55% of Christians polled couldn't name the four Gospels.  (Jews, not too suprisingly, bombed the shit out of that question--but they beat the hell out of all other groups when asked about Martin Luther starting the Reformation--go figure.) 

We're a nation full of fucking morons, folks.  And that's why, when that woman got in my face about ignorance, I didn't mention this poll.  Yeah, as an atheist, I'm probably statistically more likely to know slightly more about religion and religious shit than someone who's actually religious.  But, as noted, a D-/F doesn't give you much of an edge in my book.  Sure, I personally know quite a bit about religion, but I can't claim status in a group that has superior knowledge for all of the above reasons.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to perform some unspeakable dark rites.  By which I mean drink a pint of stout.  Peace, bitches.

Maybe she should adopt the Quran burning preacher

That asshole cracker preacher in Florida is getting a lot of attention for his threat to burn the Quran on the 9th anniversary of 9/11. Attention and face time on the tube is precisely what this douchebag wants. A handful of the so-called respectable neo-con Islamophobes are running away from Pastor Terry Jones BUT continue to whip up hate against Allah the Sky God whilst championing Jehovah the Sky God.

Angelina Jolie has now entered the fray. She's on an humanitarian mission in Pakistan and has quite correctly denounced Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn the other team's holy book. I'm not much of an Angelina fan but it occurred to me that she can be part of the solution to this problem. She should adopt the wayward Pastor, make him shave off his goofy mustache, send him to bed without supper and ground him until 9/12/2011. Direct action is often the best action. And if she can't adopt him, maybe fellow adoptaholic Mia Farrow can do so...

If the adoption thing doesn't work out maybe Monty Python's Terry Jones can sue to reclaim his spot as the world's most famous Terry Jones. Imagine this bozo biblethumper trying to engage the *real* Terry Jones in banter. There's no genuine legal cause of action BUT the barracking in the press would be entertaining.

I'll let Andy Partridge and XTC have the last word on the subject of burning books:

Malakas Of The Week: The Louisiana Coffin Cartel

The Gret Stet of Louisiana has all sorts of weird boards and such, which ostensibly regulate commerce but are just as often set up to protect special interests and fatten someone's wallet. That, in turn, leads to malakatude as you're about to see.The latest story involves a dispute between the Benedictine Monks and the Louisiana Board Of Embalmers and Funeral Directors over coffins:

When St. Joseph Abbey decided to open a woodshop on All Saints Day 2007 to sell handcrafted caskets to the public, the hope was that the sales would pay for the medical and educational needs of 36 Benedictine monks.

The board regulating Louisiana's embalmers and funeral directors, though, would have none of it. Before a single casket was sold, it mailed the monks a cease-and-desist letter, citing a state statute that carried thousands of dollars in fines and up to 180 days in prison for anyone selling funeral boxes without first paying the fees and meeting the requirements necessary to get a license from them.

On Thursday, the 121-year-old abbey fired back with a document of its own: a lawsuit asking a federal judge to strike down that law.

Obviously, funeral homes need to be regulated for health and safety reasons but this dispute involves neither. This is about money: the Benedictine's simple and comparatively inexpensive caskets are cutting into the profits of funeral homes. I don't know how many of you have had to pick out a coffin but the less expensive options cost much more than the Benedictine's and are so awful, tacky and flimsy that nobody wants to bury a loved one therein. The Benedictines are cutting into the takings of the undertakers who have rolled out some big guns to stifle competition and protect their own bottom lines. Most of the members of the Board are, of course, morticians who want to keep selling expensive caskets to their customers.

Me, I don't believe in the body in the box thing. I've told Dr. A if I go first that I want to be cremated and put in an urn on the mantle next to our cats' ashes. I've never liked open caskets but ended up *really* disliking them after my mother's funeral. Part of the Greek Orthodox funeral rite involves anointing the remains with olive oil. It creeps me out but I'm the youngest so I didn't plan the ceremony. My cousin Carol was raised a Lutheran so she nearly jumped out of her skin when she saw this. It takes a lot for a Norwegian from Wisconsin to freak out but this did it. Sorry about that, cuz.

It's fascinating that this particular dispute arose in South Louisiana, which, at times, is more Catholic than the Pope. And Catholics disfavor cremation for reasons I once knew but am too lazy to look up so the coffin biz is big biz. It's time for the state to eliminate the coffin cartel and perhaps even the malakatudinous Board of malakas who embalm and overcharge for it.

When I spotted this story I wanted to, uh, box the ears of the undertakers' board but since that was physically impossible I made them malakas of the week instead.

Religious Nuts: They're All Cut From The Same Cloth

Learn some goddamned geometry!

So. Apparently, a bunch of fanatics in Saudi Arabia have decided that GMT needs to be superceded by Arabia Standard Time.  And what passes for logic with these guys is really, really appalling. 

Really, check this out.

As Mohammed al-Arkubi, manager of one of the hotels in the complex, put it: "Putting Mecca time in the face of Greenwich Mean Time. This is the goal."

According to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric known around the Muslim world for his popular television show "Sharia and Life", Mecca has a greater claim to being the prime meridian because it is "in perfect alignment with the magnetic north."

This claim that the holy city is a "zero magnetism zone" has won support from some Arab scientists like Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed of the Egyptian National Research Centre who says that there is no magnetic force in Mecca.

"That's why if someone travels to Mecca or lives there, he lives longer, is healthier and is less affected by the earth's gravity," he said. "You get charged with energy."

Western scientists have challenged such assertions, noting that the Magnetic North Pole is in actual fact on a line of longitude that passes through Canada, the United States, Mexico and Antarctica.

What in the hell is that all about?  These dolts need to team up with the Institute for Creation Research and the Insane Clown Posse.  They're all just as ignorant and proud of it. 

To begin with--every single point on earth is in perfect alignment with the magnetic north.  If you take any two points anywhere on this little rock, you can draw a straight line between them.  Really.  Try it some time.

Also--how, exactly, would a lack of magnetism, even if such a thing existed in Mecca, mean that you're less affected by gravity?  Gravity is, of course, not completely understood, but, you know, F=GMm/r2 and all.  It affects people in Mecca just as it does everywhere else at that altitude (minor variations due to topography and geology aside).  You don't see a term for magnetism in that equation, do you?  I didn't think so.

Additionally, someone might want to tell Abdel-Baset al-Sayyed that, if there's no magnetic force in Mecca, you'll probably want to stay away from there.  Holes in the magnetosphere would lead to bad outcomes for organic beings, seeing as how the solar wind would, you know, kill everything there if the magnetosphere weren't protecting us--even those of us who are willfully stupid.

GMT is an arbitrary standard.  It wasn't chosen because Greenwich is in line with the magnetic pole, or because there's no magnetism there, or because the Druids liked it.  It was chosen because England was the dominant maritime power when the standard was set, and that's where the Royal Observatory was, which was where they measured longitude relative to that giant hot gas ball we circle every year.  It's not even the standard anymore; UTC is, and that's determined by International Atomic Time--and that's a weighted average of the time on a network of hundreds of atomic clocks in dozens of locations around the world.  Which, to be fair, is a far more accurate way to do the task at hand than worrying about where a spot on earth is relative to the apparent position of said giant hot gas ball.  You're not even bitching about the right thing here, morons.

I'm not picking on them because they're Muslim--as stated, I think that these dolts and the ICR people and, well, all of the blind faith yo-yos around the world are all cut from the same cloth.  (Get it?  Man, my jokes are wasted on you people.)

The Anti-What League?

I was horrified and saddened the other day when the Anti-Defamation League joined the hateful mob rabble rousing against the Mosque near Ground Zero. I had planned writing a post about it but Peter Beinart nailed it at the Daily Beast so I'll quote his powerful closing paragraphs instead:

For a long time now, the ADL seems to have assumed that it could exempt Israel from the principles in its charter and yet remain just as faithful to that charter inside the United States. But now the chickens are coming back home to America to roost. The ADL’s rationale for opposing the Ground Zero mosque is that “building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain—unnecessarily—and that is not right.” Huh? What if white victims of African-American crime protested the building of a black church in their neighborhood? Or gentile victims of Bernie Madoff protested the building of a synagogue? Would the ADL for one second suggest that sensitivity toward people victimized by members of a certain religion or race justifies discriminating against other, completely innocent, members of that religion or race? Of course not. But when it comes to Muslims, the standards are different. They are different in Israel, and now, it is clear, they are different in the United States, too.

Indifference to the rights and dignity of Palestinians is a cancer eating away at the moral pretensions of the American Jewish establishment. Last Friday, in the case of the ADL, we learned just how far that cancer has spread.

The ADL was such a fine organization for so long that it's sad to see what's become of it. The ADL's stance on the mosque is a mockery of what it stood for before it hopped into bed with the Christian right and the neo-cons. It's more than a pity, it's a travesty.

Malaka Of The Week: Ron Ramsey

I'm an atheist but around religious people, I soften it to agnostic because for some reason they mind it less. I'm not sure why but, hey, I'm a tolerant person but one thing that I'm intolerant of is intolerance. That brings me to this week's "honoree." Ron Ramsey is running for Governor of Tennessee as a Republican. He's the Lt. Gov and, apparently, his campaign was stuck in the mud. So, instead of spinning his wheels, he decided to take action and trot out a boogieman for the voters to beat on. Mr. Ramsey's choice was Muslims:

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, currently running third in the state's Republican gubernatorial primary race, says he's not sure if Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion apply to the followers of the world's second-largest faith, Islam.

At a recent event in Hamilton County, Ramsey was asked by a man in the audience about the "threat that's invading our country from the Muslims." Ramsey proclaimed his support for the Constitution and the whole "Congress shall make no law" thing when it comes to religion. But he also said that Islam, arguably, is less a faith than it is a "cult."

"Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it," Ramsey said. "Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face."

The question, Ramsey mused, was related to the simmering topic of a new Muslim community center scheduled to be built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Ramsey, like many conservatives weighing in on the debate, mistakenly confused the center with a mosque -- which Murfreesboro already has -- and then proceeded to foment fears that Sharia saw would be practiced by Muslims there.

"Now, you know, I'm all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on," he said. "But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee -- to the United States. We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution."

Sharia law in Tennessee? Horrors: run and hide and under the bed everyone. They're coming to put a head scarf on the women and cut the hands off all the men. It's, of course, okay for biblethumpers to pass laws effecting those of other faiths but Muslims? It's time to exercise your Second Amendment rights and run those varmints outta the hills of Tennessee. I wonder if Ramsey has heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Here's the deal: I'm not down with any of the monotheistic faiths. If one believes that one's Sky God is the only true Sky God, intolerance is one step away. Over the centuries many people of faith have tried their damnedest to reign in the nutjobs in their sects and work on respecting others. Christians may be the majority in Tennessee but they're the minority in other places. Additionally, Christianity was considered a cult until it grew to the point that it had to be respected. There are a helluva lot of Muslims in the world so it's hard to argue that they're a cult. Hmm, I wonder if Malaka Ramsey likes the Washington Times? As a wingnut, I bet he does. It is, of course, owned by the Moonies who most people consider a cult. But cults should be tolerated as well. That's how things work in a pluralistic democracy.

Ron Ramsey's cynical use of religious bigotry is merely a symptom of a bigger problem. Anti-Muslim hate speech seems to have reached a fever pitch of late. In New York, there's been an ongoing controversy about the possibility of a Muslim center being placed near Ground Zero. "Outside agitators" such as Newt Gingrich and that silly woman from Alaska whose name I never mention have gotten on their hind legs to bray against it. That episode seems to have reached its apogee with GOP Gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio demanding a debate with Democrat Andrew Cuomo on that topic and nothing else. Why? Like Ramsey, Lazio is heading towards defeat and he's playing the hate card to see if he can stir things up. It's a text book case of egregious malakatude.

I selected Ron Ramsey as malaka of the week but he's essentially a stand-in for all the bigots who are stirring up hate of the Other. Me, I prefer to criticize individuals as opposed to demonizing whole groups.I wish some of these folks would substitute church or synagogue for the word mosque when they start painting with such a broad brush. Of course, the current ginned up controversies are about community centers that just happen to be run by Muslims so the bigot should substitute Presbyterian, Lutheran or Reform Judaism for the M word. I don't think the JCC in New Orleans has any plans to bring Talmudic law to the Gret Stet, which means I won't have to race out and buy a yarmulke. I doubt if I could find one that fit my size 8 head anyway...

Latest Wingnut Crazy-Causing Factor

Man, I think I've been spending too much time reading conservative whackjobbery, because lately all I have to do is see a headline and I can write the column that accompanies it.

Muslim groups plan Islamic center at Sept. 11 site

A.

The Ministry of Silly Memos

Pope Benny the Ratzinger is visiting the U.K. soon. Some bright young staffers wrote a Pythonesque memo for internal consumption only. It was leaked to the Right Wing press. Foreign Secretary David Miliband had to apologize to the Pope for this very silly memo.

An internal Foreign Office memo about September's papal visit to Britain, born of a Friday afternoon brainstorming session involving a group of junior civil servants, resulted yesterday in the demotion of a young official and a formal government apology to the Vatican.

The memorandum, apparently written by staff planning events for the four-day visit by Pope Benedict XVI, suggested he might like to start a helpline for abused children, sack "dodgy" bishops, open an abortionward, launch his own brand of condoms, preside at a civil partnership, perform forward rolls with children, apologise for the Spanish armada and sing a song with the Queen.

More Gret Stet Weirdness

St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro is a pious dude. He takes his religion so seriously that he seems to be confusing himself with Jesus; either that or he has a foot fetish. Whatever the case this is deeply creepy. I'm about to do something I *never* do and cut and paste the entire Picayune article in its sublime weirdness:

The ritual of washing feet has a deep-seated tie to Holy Week, a symbol of the humility Jesus Christ showed in performing the act for his 12 disciples the day before his death. St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro took that custom into the workplace Thursday, going around the government complex throughout the day to wash the feet of willing employees.

"As the chief executive officer of St. Bernard Parish Government, I thought it was an appropriate gesture to show that I am as humbled as any other sinner in the world, so much so that I would offer to wash the feet of the employees," Taffaro said.

Taffaro did not publicize his actions Thursday. A reporter was alerted to the matter by several phone calls from people who had heard from government employees whose feet were washed.

"It's very uncomfortable to me to take an act of humility and make it a public statement," Taffaro said, clearly concerned that his actions would be labeled an attempt at publicity.

The incident does touch on the line drawn between church and state, as well as the delicate relationship between boss and employee.

Taffaro said employees were not pressured in to having him wash their feet. But he did say the vast majority of them accepted the offer. "If they wanted to participate, they could. If they didn't, no problem," said Taffaro, who is a devout Catholic. "I didn't keep a list or anything like that."

He also added that he does not think washing feet in the government complex is an overtly religious act, but rather a universal symbol of humility. "It's no different than people who offer to bring Holy Communion to people who are in federally run prisons," he said. "That would be the same concept."

The feet washing ritual is often incorporated into Catholic and other Christian ceremonies the Thursday of Holy Week, known as Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday. The direct reference in the Bible is the Gospel of John, which describes Jesus washing the feet of his disciples at the time of the Last Supper.

St. Bernard Parish Councilman Wayne Landry said he did not see the ritual performed, but heard about it from employees when he arrived at the government complex Thursday afternoon. He said a few employees told him they felt uncomfortable with the way it was done. Landry said that it might have been better if Taffaro had a voluntary gathering for folks who were interested, instead of going around the building asking if employees wanted their feet washed.

"Perhaps had it been an invited thing for whoever wanted to come, maybe those types of comments I received would have been avoided," Landry said. "On the other side, I certainly wouldn't want to diminish the good will that was exhibited by the president in the spirit of Easter. I believe his intentions were good."

 

Malaka Of The Week: Joseph Ratzinger

It seems to be kick Pope Benedict week and as much as I hate to be a conformist he's the obvious choice for this week's "honor." I even enjoyed Maureen Dowd's column on Pope Malaka yesterday: she sprayed her bile on a deserving target this time. This scans like one of her best screeds about President Beavis:

It doesn’t seem right that the Catholic Church is spending Holy Week practicing the unholy art of spin.

Complete with crown-of-thorns imagery, the church has started an Easter public relations blitz defending a pope who went along with the perverse culture of protecting molesters and the church’s reputation rather than abused — and sometimes disabled and disadvantaged — children.

The church gave up its credibility for Lent. Holy Thursday and Good Friday are now becoming Cover-Up Thursday and Blame-Others Friday.

Herr Ratzinger finds himself neck deep in yet another pedophile priest scandal; this time in Europe. The Vatican is spending Holy Week trying to spin and make excuses for the Pope's involvement in the cover-up. Their method is what John Ehrlichman memorably dubbed "a modified limited hangout." The Vatican, however, erred in allowing the Pope himself to show his teeth and growl like a Rottweiler on Palm Sunday:

The 82-year-old pontiff led tens of thousands of people in a Palm Sunday service in St Peter's square. He did not mention the scandal engulfing the church directly, but parts of his sermon alluded to it.

The pope said that faith in God helped lead one "towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion". He also spoke of how man can sometimes "fall to the lowest, vulgar levels" and "sink into the swamp of sin and dishonesty".

One prayer read during the mass asked God to help "the young and those who work to educate and protect them". Vatican Radio said it was intended to "sum up the feelings of the church at this difficult time when it confronts the plague of paedophilia".

In the face of one of the gravest scandals in the Catholic church's recent history, the Vatican has chosen to attack the media for what it called an "ignoble attempt" to smear Pope Benedict and his top advisers "at any cost".

The Vatican is facing a barrage of questions about the pope's handling of sex abuse cases both when he was archbishop of Munich and when he headed the Vatican's doctrinal office.

The then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the archbishop of Munich when a priest was allowed to resume pastoral work with children even while receiving therapy for paedophilia. He was subsequently convicted of abusing minors. In addition, a case has come to light in which Ratzinger's deputy at the Vatican doctrinal office told Wisconsin bishops to quash a church trial for a priest alleged to have abused up to 200 deaf boys.

The Vatican insists the pope was unaware of the Munich priest's move to the pastoral job and has defended its handling of the Wisconsin case.

Benedict has only spoken out publicly about the scandal in Ireland, writing a letter to the Irish faithful last week in which he chastised Irish bishops for leadership shortcomings and errors in judgment for failing to apply church law to stop abusive priests.

Of course, Herr Ratzinger has thus far refused to address the growing scandal in the German Church some of which happened when he was Archbishop of Munchen. Ratzinger should have paid more attention to what his employees in dog collars were munchen on. Papal underlings have claimed that Herr Ratzinger was sorta like Poppy Bush during Iran-Contra and out of the loop when he was running things in the land of brats and beer. Those who are familiar with Ratzinger's managerial style aren't buying it: he's a notorious micro-manager. It's quite obvious that he knew what was going on but like most clerics he regards covering up for other Priests as part of the job.

The most horrifying German case  is the one mentioned above: it involved a Priest who was a convicted sex offender but returned to pastoral duty. I understand that the Church is in the forgiveness business but this Priest should have been sent to a monastery on a mountain somewhere when the only thing he could bugger was a goat. The Pope, however, sounds like Sgt. Schultz: I know nothing, I see nothing. It's a pity that the leader of one of the world's great faiths is guilty of such egregious malaktude but I call them as I see them. Unlike Pope Benedict, Poppy Bush and Sgt. Schultz, I pay attention to what's going on and when I screw up I apologize, make amends and move on. But malakatude means never having to say you're wrong or sorry. That may be good enough for politicians but it's not good enough for the Pope; particularly when children are involved. No indulgences for you, Herr Ratzinger, you're just a malaka in a cassock as far as I'm concerned.

Stupak's Nunsense

I love to quote Joan Walsh so I'll do it again:

Stupak's entitled to his opinion on the issue. But he went beyond what was necessary, yesterday and today, in disrespecting the 60 Catholic nuns representing 59,000 sisters who bucked the Catholic bishops and came out for the bill Wednesday, declaring it "the real pro-life position." "When I’m drafting right-to-life language, I don’t call up the nuns," Stupak told Fox News. Instead he said he consulted "leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and the National Right to Life Committee." <SNIP>

There was a way for Stupak to say he disagreed with the nuns without condescending to them, but two days in a row, he didn't find it. In fact, his disrespect of the nuns seems of a piece with his stubborn stance not only on abortion but the healthcare reform bills. He joins the patriarchal leaders of the Catholic Church who never listen to the voices of women, either, and he's proud of that.

Why on earth would Bart listen to women when celibate, pedophile protecting men in cassocks and dog collars are speaking? They not only know their shit, they're full of it. Stupak is not only a douchebag but a dumbass: who among us is not afraid of nuns? Beyond the urban legends about ruler wielding banshees excoriating students in parochial schools, I've been pummelled by nuns along the parade route in New Orleans many times. Our local nuns are bead grubbing maniacs and only a fool isn't scared of them. Guess what that makes Bart? I know: he's the man who put (packed?) the stupid in Stupak. 

Malaka Of The Week: Pat Robertson

There was a lot of egregious malakatude this week but in the end I had to pick the evil, senile and faux avuncular Pat Robertson. I hesitated to do so because my colleagues have done such a good job hitting the Bad Reverend upside the head here, here and here. Jude's comments on the first post, in particular, are *impossible* to top.

But even if predictable coming from this well seasoned douchebag, claiming that Haiti was hit by a record setting earthquake was because of a pact with the devil hits 100 on the malakatude scale. Why would a deal with Satan be necessary for SLAVES to gain their freedom, Pat? Your version of God is pro-slavery? I know you should be placed on an ice flow and put out to sea in your underwear but I figured you thought slavery wasn't a good thing, Pat. Toussaint L'Overture was a freedom fighter claiming the rights that he mistakenly thought were granted by the French Revolution.

The good news is that the Bad Reverend hasn't got long to live so these periodic eruptions of imbecility from him will cease.  I'm sure there are many others who'll fill the gap and pronounce natural disasters as punishment for sins, deals with the devil or Southern Decadence. Pat Robertson will leave the scene fairly soon but his sort of malakatude is eternal.

I'll let Jon Stewart have the last word on Pat and his colleagues in malakatude:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Haiti Earthquake Reactions
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Well, that didn't take long

Predictably, Pat Robertson has jumped up and laid blame for the earthquake on Haiti's supposedly sinful and cursed past.

Schmuck.

via Media Matters

The Weight

This sketch, the beginning of it anyway, is the first thing I thought of when I heard Brit Hume's comments on the superiority of Christianity over other spiritual paths.

As for the rest of the sketch, I think we can agree that the preacher character is as useful to politics as it is to stand up comedy, no?

Faith Healer, Heal Thyself?

I was raised not to speak ill of the dead but I've always been convinced that there is a loophole for mockery. I hereby exercise that loophole. Oral Roberts died yesterday at the age of 91. He was an important albeit unfortunate person in American history: the first full-tilt televangelist. Roberts brought old timey, tent show revival Pentecostal bible banging into the modern era. I wish he'd left it back in the days of outhouses and spittoons where it belongs.

Roberts was not as overtly political as the next wave of televangelists such as Robertson, Swaggart and Falwell BUT he created the template for their electronic ministries. Thanks, Oral. His influence in Oklahoma and North Texas was very strong indeed; just look at the Senators from Oklahoma: Inhofe and Coburn are two of loopiest pols that have fallen out of the wingnut tree in recent years.

Roberts was notorious for his shameless begging and flim flammery: most memorably the time in 1987 when he said he'd go home to Jeeezus if he didn't raise enough money for his heavily indebted medical school. It was another scam that he claimed worked; not unlike his faith healing. Money was always important to Roberts: he lived like a robber baron out of the Gilded Age on funds raised by shaking the faithful (aka suckers) down.

Religion is, of course, inherently irrational, it's based on belief and faith. I'm one of those people who can't buy into it and the Oral Roberts' of the world make it even harder for people with a brain to have such faith. If Oral Roberts could really heal the sick and lame, why didn't he heal himself? I guess God finally called him home to the great penthouse in the sky...

"I'm reading it from your book, dude."

This interview with prominent ex-gay Richard Cohen is bound to get a lot of play in the coming weeks, and if you haven't seen it, I gotta say it's fairly epic. Maddow takes him apart. Watch his body language get twitchier by the minute. He definitely needs a hug by the end.

Side note: Last night @maddow live-twitter denizens (think Crack Van on estrogen) were primed for this like a pay-for-view boxing match. Watching it as it aired, though, I felt myself getting weirdly uncomfortable as Maddow pressed on toward the takedown. Now, this might get taken out of context but bear with me (we lesbians do like to process our stuff). In short, I first felt like she was taking it too personally, that it made her seem less credible. For the record, of course she did obviously show she took it personally but what I had to remind myself was that this was beside the point. One, because the show isn't a straight (no pun intended) news show, it's commentary. Two, and more importantly, what she charged Cohen with is - sadly - accurate. 

I bring that up because I've had that reaction before, not just regarding GLBT issues in the media, but with respect to other instances where progressive or liberal views are brought forth in the mainstream, usually when countering someone like a Cohen, or a Palin, or a Bachmann. For me, it's a sign of how, despite my conscious efforts otherwise, I've internalized the false framing regarding the primacy of balance. Note to self, Chuck Todd, David Gregory, and others: some shit is just inherently UNBALANCED. Keep that thought front and center as we move toward 2012 and more of the weird turn pro. 

Uganda legislating to kill and imprison gays is unbalanced. The C Street Family tinkering with policy in Uganda and elsewhere abroad is unbalanced. Persisting in attempts to refute scientific fact with subjective belief is unbalanced.

I'm not going to delve too much into the underpinnings of the pray-the-gay-away and/or ex-gay movement, as I think they speak volumes all by themselves. However, something the ex- and prayed-away gays don't like to focus on, and Maddow notably does here, and in the preceding interview, is that it's a big business. I do wonder whether Cohen et al would make this their life's work if there wasn't a percentage in it?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Holy Ghost Power

Almost persuaded. But not quite.

In a post about the Christian right, DougJ at Balloon Juice poses an interesting question:

I don’t understand modern Christianity. As I’ve said before, Jesus has always seemed like a hippie to me, and I don’t think there’s so much in the New Testament that resembles Mein Kampf. So, seriously, what is up with so many Christian leaders wanting to emulate Hitler, Stalin, Lenin Mao, Genghis Kahn, etc? Is there a simple explanation for this?

Well, there's no easy answer.  A lot of his commenters go for the "power" answer, but it's not that simple.  Evangelical Christianity is a complicated thing.  I know I often mock, deride, and otherwise laugh at this phenomenon, but I've had lots of experience with it, and while I hesitate to say that I understand that way of thinking, I do believe I have some insight into it.*

It's not just about power.  It's about what they believe is the power to do good.  They don't admire Hitler and Mao and Lenin for their achievements; they admire them for their ability to motivate people.  They dream of motivating Christians to do extraordinary things, like Lenin and Mao did.  They have no conception that they could abuse their power (then again, true believers never do); they think that if they could set the world on fire for Jesus, then paradise would ensue. 

You can argue about how fucked up that vision is, but you can't say that the people who believe in it are cynical exploiters; they really do think that they have the ultimate answer, and that the world would be better off if their vision prevailed.

Naturally, the problem with that is as follows:  That's what every would-be autocrat thinks.  There's no significant difference between what the hard-core Christianists think and what, say, people who dream of a restored Caliphate think.  The only distinction is in what they call their god and in what prayers they say.  The same general pattern applied at Nuremburg in the early 1930's, or in any other mass rally. 

The above photo is of an old-time tent meeting.  If you aren't aware of that phenomenon, you really can't understand modern evangelical Christianity.  The revival meeting is a large gathering of people who, by and large, agree with what the speaker is saying, and make commitments to do what the speaker says.  Just like any mass rally, it's a way to get group objectives accomplished.  The evangelicals, looking as they always do to the (largely imagined) past for inspiration, see the old-time tent revival as a model for what to do.  They ignore the uncomfortable fact that those meetings didn't result in the new kingdom of Jesus being at hand (or they rail about the will of god being sidetracked by [insert bogeyman here]).

I'd be clearer about this, but this wine is fucking with me, for true.  I guess the point is that, as easy as it would be to demonize evangelical Christians for being mindless drones, shit isn't that simple.  The leaders and the followers have a sincere vision for what they think would be a perfect world.  That many of the rest of us find their perfection to be completely fucked doesn't mean that they're evil.  Wrong, sure.  Evil, no.  Persuadable?  Probably not.  Which means that we just have to out-vote them.

Anyway, this is one of the perils of drinking and blogging.

*I'm aware of the irony of saying that a movement is complex, then making broad generalizations about that movement.  So there's no need to point that out.

In Which I Come Through And Solve A Seemingly Intractable Problem. Yet Again.

Leave December to me & this guy.

I had a great idea yesterday. Trust me. Great. 

I was thinking about Christmas, and how unhappy some people are that it starts in, oh, September.  Then I thought about how unhappy some people are that there's not enough religious crap attached to Christmas.

Here comes the great idea.

I think that the anti-choice crowd should celebrate their religious Christmas in March, and leave December to those of us who want to enjoy free shit, televised sporting events, and gluttony.

Bear with me here.

You see, it's one of the tenets of many of the anti-choicers that life begins at conception.*  If that's the case, then the Virgin Birth is just denouement.  It's the Virgin Conception that's important.  I mean, if you really believe that shit, then the little blastocyst/embryo/fetus Messiah was just chillin' out inside the Blessed Virgin for nine months or so, biding his time so that the rich guys could make it from the east with their gifts.  I mean, if he was alive, and if he was god, he knew when they would arrive, right?  Also, I am aware that I am conflating anti-choicers with the "War on Christmas" crowd.  I realize that the two groups are not necessarily identical, so there's no need to point that out.  Work with me, people.

So, assuming that Mary had the normal 40-or-so week gestational period, that means that the Holy Sperm (or whatever delivery vehicle was used for god's DNA) hit its target some time in March.**  And that's the day that the anti-choicers should celebrate.  Let them put their money where their collective mouth is.***

What's the advantage to this plan?  I'm glad you asked.

First of all, it would leave the winter solstice/Saturnalia/college bowl game season to those of us who aren't bitching about how there's no Christ in Christmas.  If you're religious, and you want to keep observing your Christmas in December (because you're not fetus-crazy), you're welcome to join us!  Festivus observers, too--come on in.  We've got room around the pagan evergreen tree symbol for you.

Second, for lots of people, it would mean that the gut-busting, annoying-family-meal holidays would be spaced more than four weeks apart.  And that's a good thing for so very many of us.

Finally, it would mean that the Christmas shopping season wouldn't necessarily begin in earnest right after Thanksgiving.  Sure, some people would be getting Saturnalia/non-crazy Christmas/Festivus gifts and decorations, but some people would be happier buying their Nativity sets and what not in March.  The retail season wouldn't be so dependent on one day, and you wouldn't have poor fucking Wal-Mart employees trampled to death by people who just had to get the Shrek box set for just $9.99.  What I'm saying is that the big Christmas push (Ha ha!  Get it?) wouldn't be so big in November.

So, you've got less congestion at stores, a longer retail season, less holiday weight gain, and we'd effectively end Bill O'Reilly's ability to bitch about the War on Christmas.  I don't see any downside at all. 

You may thank me with donations.  Link is to the left.  Over there, near the top.  That's the one.  Click it.  It's what Blastocyst Jesus would want you to do.

*No, I'm not talking about the Immaculate Conception.  That refers to the Virgin Mary being born without the taint of Original Sin, so that she could bear the divine presence of the Lord up in her guts.  Learn your doctrines, heathens.

**Yes, I'm aware that the actual birth of Jesus would probably have been in June or July.  Killjoy historians.

***The temptation to make an oral sex joke here was nearly overwhelming.  But I did it; I resisted.

Beyond mere homophobia: a sad day for Rhode Island

Yesterday, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri, vetoed 25 bills passed by the State Assembly. One of those bills would have changed existing state law to add "domestic partners" to those authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other.

That's right. The Governor says if you are gay, and your partner dies, you can't claim their body and you can't arrange for their funeral or cremation. Not just because you're gay but because ... wait for it:  it would threaten traditional marriage.

In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.

Now, maybe I'm having trouble remembering my American history but I could swear that the concept of separation of church and state had more than just a little bit to do with the founding of Rhode Island.

So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of setting up the form of church government, electing church officers, punishing with church censures, but to see that the church does her duty herein. And on the other side, the churches as churches, have no power (though as members of the commonweal they may have power) of erecting or altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicate) as by deposing magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against them

I wouldn't go so far as to say Roger Williams is rolling in his grave, but this other kind of "incremental erosion of principles," the ones the state upon which the state was founded, makes this already sad story even worse.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Carcieri is a member of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), whose mission is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." In addition, last month, Carcieri delivered a speech against marriage equality to the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), an organization so rabid in its homophobic zeal, it almost makes NOM seem normal in comparison:

"MFI does not consider homosexual behavior to be merely an alternate lifestyle or sexual 'preference'; it is an unhealthy practice and destructive to individuals, families and society. Our compassion for those plagued by same-sex attraction compels us to support the healing of those who wish to change their behavior. MFI strongly opposes any efforts by political activists to normalize homosexual behavior and all attempts to equate homosexuality with benign characteristics such as skin color, or the 'gay rights' movement with the civil rights movement."

In his statement yesterday, Carcieri gave two other reasons for the veto:

As written, he said the bill would allow the decisions of a "partner'' of a year to take precedence over "traditional family members,'' and he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.''

Carcieri said he was also uncertain "how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for year'' since there is "no official or recognized form'' of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island. He called this proviso "vague and ill-defined.''

One bright spot: The existing law protects the wishes of those who have created pre-planned, formalized funeral contracts.  Carcieri's veto can't change that.

Quiet hate hurts

A few months ago, I found myself in one of those Disneyland-style lines at the airport as we attempted to pass through security. Just behind me in the line was a beefy, muscular guy, about six feet tall, who had a shaved head and a ton of tattoos. At a certain point in the weaving line, I managed to get a good look at him. His arms were adorned with swastikas and pit bulls. Down the back of each of his triceps was a single word: “WHITE” on the left and “POWER” on the right. When he got to the front of the line, I slowed up a bit to see what would happen as he approached the black guy who was checking IDs. He glared at the TSA agent with palpable contempt, but moved forward once he was checked out.

There was no incident, but the message was clear: I hate you.

I thought about that guy when I watched the election results in Maine roll in. I was saddened for my friends in the gay community who want nothing more than the right to be as miserable as those of us in the straight community. Marriage is one of those things that some people love, others hate and even more avoid. I know many people who have lifelong commitments that dwarf mine but are unrecognized by the law and that saddens me. Listening to a turdburgler like Frank Schubert who seems to think that this miscarriage of justice is in some way preserving the institution of marriage reinforces my sense that stupid people shouldn’t breed.

However, it took the Maine election to help me realize that the issue of gay marriage doesn’t come down to guys like Schubert or Chuck Schott or the other overt haters. While these folks are the lightning rods, the stereotypes and the reasons activists get up in the morning to defend their causes, they’re not the problem.

In an election that drew upwards of 500,000 people according to fivethirtyeight.com, we saw a 52-48 split. If that’s the case, we’re looking at about 260,000 people who said, “Yeah, we’re grateful for your contributions to the fashion industry and all, but marriage? Let’s not go there…” Of these quarter-million-plus voters, they’re obviously not all loud idiots carrying signs or people who use “faggot” as a portion of their daily vernacular.

Instead, they’re the “regular people” we spend time with every day. They’re the grandparents who are watching their grandkids ride on the fake pony outside of K-mart. They’re the smiling folks who work the counter at Starbucks and chat with everyone about the weather. They’re the people who strike up a conversation with strangers on the bus about how the local high school football team is going to do this year. They’re the decent, hard-working folks who pay taxes, donate coats to Goodwill this time of year, help out at the church festival and do all sorts of other things that are aimed at the betterment of a society.

And yet, when they enter the shrouded secrecy of a voting booth, they can’t bring themselves to say that equal rights aren’t special rights. They get some strange vision that if we legalize gay marriage, a giant spree of gaydom will unfurl across our country and that the red, white and blue will become the pink, cream and robin’s egg. They hear the echo of the talk radio idiots in their head about “what those people do in their bedrooms” at night, as if the people in committed relationships aren’t doing it now to begin with. (And as a general aside, I’ve seen some heterosexual couples that would make me more than shudder if I had to imagine what they looked like doing the deed in their bedroom. The fact that your nudity and sex acts may repulse someone else should not be viewed as a legitimate reason to deny marriage.)

When it comes right down to it, we’d be better off if the haters were honest. As Americans, we’ve always been better fighting wars in which the enemy was clear and easily targeted. We know we can’t persuade the people who are willing to mar their bodies, parade with signs or scream their slogans in the name of a hateful cause. However, we can find ways to fight back against that.

It’s the silent fears and quiet hatred that will always cause trouble in a fight like this.

Pssssst, Mr. A....

I think these would make lovely stocking stuffers for someone...

 

BSG Little Frakkers, via Think Geek

The best money they didn’t spend

I ran across this while trolling some student media sites and found myself wondering if Joseph Heller ever considered writing about student newspapers.

The gist of the story is that a pro-life group tried to run a 12-page insert in a number of college papers around the state of Wisconsin. A number of them ran the insert while two papers decided against it. In looking at what ad rates tend to be for inserts in these types of papers, the papers were likely to make about $200-$600 if the group bought inserts for their whole press run, depending on the size of the paper.

On campuses like Marquette, which apparently ran the ad and was lauded for it, it’s easy to take the stand of being pro-life. After all, it’s a Jesuit institution, the place is run by the clergy and there’s a crucifix in every classroom. There’s not a lot of risk that you won’t be preaching to the choir. However, the student journalists at Oshkosh and Stevens Point said, “Thanks, but no thanks. We’re going to try to avoid starting a shit storm on our campus.”

Of course, the minute the pro-life group picked up the phone or faxed in the order for the ad space, the kids were dead in the water, no matter what they did. Had they decided to run the inserts, they would likely be viewed as money-grubbing whores who would run ads for Hitler if the price were right. The folks from the pro-choice side of the aisle would likely speak out against the ads, arguing that they were promoting an ideology and offering incorrect information. (In a discussion with other folks I know in the student media world, some student newspapers have actually taken the insert to an OB/GYN, a psychologist and other folks to see if there were problems in the ads. There were “errors” I was told, and thus the papers didn’t run them.) In short, the kids would get killed for this.

Having decided against running the ads, the kids are also getting killed. I’ve heard that alums are calling these schools complaining about the lack of “free speech” on the campus. (I’m not going into the difference between free speech and paid speech. All I’m going to say is that we should require a great many people who were born here to take the same civics classes and tests we give to people from other countries who want to join our happy clan.) The pro-life group has put out a press release skewering the kids for censoring them, which has gotten at least two newspapers  and FOX News to follow up with breathless stories about how these papers are “under fire” for their choice.

The one question that hasn’t really been answered is this one: If a pro-choice group sent the EXACT SAME type of ad that attempted the EXACT SAME type of thing for its ideology, would the kids have taken it? If so, they deserve to get their asses kicked all over the place for bias. However, no one seems to be asking that question. It’s so much easier to portray this as a case of liberal media bias instead of trying to see what’s really happening here. All they likely want to do is cover the news, as opposed to being the news. In no material I’ve seen on this did anyone at either paper say, “Hey you conservative jerk-off, go fuck yourself with your insert.” There is no indication that the students said they wouldn’t run an ad from the group, only that this big-ass magazine didn’t fit within the parameters of acceptable advertising because it failed to offer a good or a service. If the pro-life group wants to fight this, the folks there should ask to buy a full-page ad on the back of each paper that offers a 1-800 line for women who are pregnant and scared and want to consider adoption instead of abortion. Nothing else. That would push back on the kids to see if this is a case of bias or simply a case of policy.

However, quite frankly, this isn’t about the ads. I’d wager that the group was elated that they were turned away by these papers and disappointed that more folks didn’t follow suit. If the campuses upon which I’ve worked are any indication, the kids who pick up the paper would have shaken out the insert, let it fall unread to the ground and went about their day. No one would have given a crap on campus except the “other side” group, which would likely start the row. Instead, by rejecting the ad, the newspapers  helped the pro-life group to emulate its Lord and crawl up on the big wooden cross. As martyrs to the cause, they could “woe as me” for days and days, with the media dutifully running front-page stories about how this all went down. In short, they got more attention by this alleged suppression of freedom than they would have if the kids had shut up and taken the money.

In short, it’s a perfect strategy and likely the best money they didn’t spend.

At the very least, I think they owe the kids a check.

Science is real. Just ask one of those nice atheists over there with the dinosaur bones

First there was this:

Five things that would make atheists seem nicer

linked to by PZ, who of course quite gracefully pissed all over it:

I especially appreciate the word "seem," because Lord knows there's nothing that could make us actually nice, and obviously we need the suggestions of a Christian, since we're all such not-nice people. I should make a counter-list of "five things that would make Christians seem intelligent"

That begat this.

All of which I can only reply to with this:

And don't miss this. Or this.

H/T to forgetomori for the post on TMBG's new Here Comes Science.

Maybe you should just set those tax dollars on fire, Senator Hatch

Not content with a full morning of carnage, the Senate Finance Committee apparently had a bit of time on its hands after throwing the Public Option under the bus Tuesday.  So they stayed late and passed a measure by Orrin Fucking Hatch to restore funding for abstinence fucking only education.  How much money?  How much of our tax dollars do 12 committee members want to spend on something that EVEN TEXAS finally admits doesn't work?

Fifty million.

Annually.

Yeah, vote down substantive change that would help tens of thousands of people get comprehensive health care but by all fucking means, let's approve spending $50,000,000 a year on a crap notion that is not just completely divorced from reality but also contributes to higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs.  

Not that it redeems him any, but Max Baucus was against the idea.

An alternate measure offered by Baucus also passed. Baucus' measure, which passed 14-9, would make money available for education on contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, among other things, in addition to abstinence. Lawmakers will have to reconcile the two measures, both approved during debate on a sweeping health overhaul bill, as the legislation moves forward.

These people make me sick.

Grave philosophical questions, or Having a Dark Night of the Gumbo

I need your help folks. I supplicate myself to your experience and wisdom, particularly our friends from Lousiana.  I seek your feedback for help dealing with a failure, of imagination, of technique, of logistics, I know not what else.

Here's my confession:

I don't know what I did with the gumbo recipe but I looked everywhere and couldn't find it. It was on a stained index card that I'd kept for 20 years, through moves between residences, crosscountry from south to east and back again.  That's really where things first went off the rails, was losing the recipe. It was my dad's recipe and his gumbo was always reliably soul-startingly good. Yes, my emotional memory of meals past may distort a bit, but this I know: it was damn fine gumbo, every one of the hundreds of times I ate it over the years. Every single f*cking time. Dark, thick, spicy and smoky but not to the extent that the taste of the shrimp and crabmeat were overpowered.

I consider myself a good cook with a good intuition, so, other than pastry and baking, I usually succeed at what I try.  I've been cooking a lot lately, trying to train myself to make food with fresh ingredients, different new things every week, not just purchase crap on the fly or rely on the couple of staple quick meals I can throw together with my eyes closed. I joined the food coop and have been reveling in fresh local produce, meat, and eggs. So, I had a handsome fresh mess of okra, some tomatoes, onions, and a lovely plump free-range chicken. Gumbo just entered my mind and I couldn't shake it.  I blame that okra.

Two sides to the fight

The Texas State Board of Education enjoyed its fair share of bad press lately, and rightly so. 

Strike 1: In Friday night's Worst Person in the World segment, Keith gave the finger to Goodhair for considering Cynthia Dunbar as a leading candidate to head up the SBOE. Not just any old run-of-the mill religious conservative, Dunbar is in the Obama-is-Hitler cult and also thinks (when she thinks at all) that public school is a “tool of perversion,” “unconstitutional,” and “tyrannical," choosing to homeschool her own offspring rather than subject them to actual education.  So naturally, our august governor thought she'd be a grand choice to chair the SBOE! 

Strike 2: Actually, Olbermann was a step behind since Perry had just chosen conservative Cynthia Lowe as chair of the board. Arguably, Lowe's a few degrees better than Dunbar, but not by much. 

In 2004 Ms. Lowe opposed requiring that publishers obey curriculum standards and put medically accurate information about responsible pregnancy and disease prevention in new high school health textbooks.

In 2008 Ms. Lowe voted to throw out nearly three years of work by teacher writing teams on new language arts standards. Over the strenuous objections of teachers and curriculum specialists, Lowe instead voted for a standards document that the board’s far-right bloc patched together overnight and slipped under hotel doors the morning of the final vote.

In 2003 and 2009 Ms. Lowe supported dumbing down the state’s public school science curriculum by voting to include unscientific, creationist criticisms of evolution in science textbooks and curriculum standards.

Strike 3: Conservative members of an "expert" curriculum advisory panel appointed by equally conservative members of the SBOE recommended that Texas social studies curriculum standards be altered so that certain historical figures — deemed by said conservatives to be poor examples for Texas schoolchildren — receive less focus. Among their targets: César Chavez, Thurgood Marshall, and Anne Hutchinson.  Ms. Lowe offers context: 

“Certainly those are historical figures that students should be aware of, and their goals and their place in history, but it needs to be in the context of what those people were known for. And so if the example is someone of good civic involvement, then there may be a different type of historical figure and leader that would be more appropriate.” 

Hear that Texas schoolkids?  "Good civic involvement" means conformity. Shut up, stay in line, pick those grapes and don't bitch about your living conditions, vote with the majority, don't think independently, and don't diss the preacher and run off to Rhode Island. That kind of thinking is just not appropriate. Also, when possible, be white. 

But rather than the  "So ... What Did my Asshat Dickhead Idealogue fill-in-the-blank? post that I am wont to do from time to time (and probably could do at least once a day) in response to the conservative and/or religious right trying to drag Texans back to the 19th century, I'm gonna change it up today.  I'm going to shine a bit of light on some good guys in this fight, the Texas Freedom Network.

TFN is one of the examples I offer when otherwise intelligent people dismiss Texas as a bleak cultural wasteland devoid of strong progressives.  TFN has one simple mission: "The Texas Freedom Network advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right." They fight the godbags* on many fronts throughout the state but education is a major battleground. Their site, and the TFN Insider blog, are the first places I turn to when I want to know the latest on the antics of the SBOE. Of particular interest are the annual State of the Religious Right reports. Bookmark TFN, learn from them, send them donations if the spirit moves you. 

Lastly, those of you in the immediate area, make a difference and do something. The SBOE is formidable but it can be changed, from within. Next week, TFN offers a SBOE Candidate Training workshop for those interested in running as a candidate in the SBOE elections in 2010.

* "godbag" ™, courtesy of Twisty Faster

"I used to tell God I hated him."

When they sent me to the sisters

For the way men looked at me

Branded as a jezebel

I knew I was not bound for heaven

I'd be cast in shame

into the Magdalene laundries. 

                        -Joni Mitchell, The Magdalene Laundries

The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse released a long-awaited report today. The report, in five volumes of 2,500 pages, took a decade of investigation to produce, and catalogues 70 years of systemic child abuse by Catholic religious orders, of at least 35,000 victims. 

Sadly, that estimate is likely too low. Many of the victims, as well as their abusers, are long dead. Even sadder, no one will face prosecution for these crimes, or for the conspiracy to cover them up.  Some surviving victims are already calling the report a politically-motivated whitewash.

The Irish State colluded with the religious authorities to cover up child abuse that was "endemic" in Catholic-run schools and care homes for 70 years, a devastating report concluded today. The Child Abuse Commission catalogued sexual, physical and emotional abuse inflicted on 35,000 disadvantaged, neglected and abandoned children by both religious and lay staff over the last 70 years. 

The Commission has described the attitude of the Church towards its work as 'adversarial and legalistic.' 

Among the religious orders whose work was investigated were the Sisters of Mercy, responsible for the largest number of children's institutions, the Christian Brothers, which ran schools for boys aged 10 to 16, the Presentation Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge. Several are expected to be explicitly criticized by the inquiry, headed by Justice Sean Ryan. The first head of the Commission, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy resigned in protest at a lack of co-operation by the Irish department of education. It was set up in 1999 when the allegations first surfaced.

1999 may have been when Ireland finally started to address the situation but allegations had "surfaced" long before that. People had heard these stories for years. The last Magdalene laundry wasn't shut down till 1996. Yes, 1996. My ex lived in Ireland for a couple of years in the late 1980s. I first heard about the laundries and industrial schools from her. I remember being incredulous, naively asking why, if it was so well-known, no one "did anything" about it. She just shrugged, "It's Ireland. It's the Church." 

Many of the institutions housed abandoned or neglected children, but courts also sent those guilty of truancy and petty crime. Some also housed disabled children. Unmarried mothers were also sent to institutions known as Magdalene Laundries, many by their own families, where they were forced into hard physical work, usually washing and ironing clothes, and lived in spartan, prison-like conditions.

"Those places were the Irish gulags for women. When you went inside their doors you left behind your dignity, identity and humanity. We were locked up, had no outside contacts and got no wages, although we worked 10 hours a day, six days a week, 52 weeks a year. What else is that but slavery? And to think that they were doing all this in the name of a loving God! I used to tell God I hated him." 

"Those places" were the Magdalene laundries: convents throughout Ireland that contained huge washing workhouses run by nuns, which were originally set up in the early 19th century as a refuge for prostitutes. A hundred years later they had become prisons to which Irish Catholic girls and young women "in moral danger" could be sent by their parish priest - the term covered anyone from single mothers (who had often become pregnant as a result of rape or incest) to girls who were simply high-spirited or "bold." 

Many never saw their families or the outside world again but lived their entire lives behind walls until they were buried in unmarked communal graves. They, in their tens of thousands, are "the disappeared" of Ireland.