<blink>
This just boggles the mind:
You may or may not have heard the story of Webster Cook, a University of Central Florida student who decided to be funny, and smuggle the Eucharist out of a Catholic mass, rather than eat it.
Cook's plan, which seems about average in terms of wacky college schemes, triggered horrible cries of outrage and indignation, for his horrible desecration of the Body of Christ... It also led to death threats against Cook. ( Shakesville )
I can't go anywhere near the doctrine of transubstantiation or the beliefs of the offended that Mr. Cook walked out of the church with the literal body of Christ. The doctrine itself relies on some philosophical deftness that I'm much to literal to work with. In my ignorance, I would have assumed that each wafer was "merely" a piece of the flesh of Christ, but for people to say that Cook was holding their god hostage the doctrine must be that each wafer becomes the whole and complete body of Christ.
There are so many things wrong with the way the faithful have responded to the situation. I'm pretty sure Jesus was down on murder. I'm also fairly certain he taught that mortals were supposed to be nice and forgiving and it was his father's job to be the heavy. So the appropriate Christian response would have been to nicely ask for the return of the wafer and then pray for the soul of the poor misguided fool who now lived in danger of hellfire and damnation. But that's just me, I guess, because that is so not what happened.
But this is what really burns my shorts:
...if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.
A hate crime? Are you @#$@(* kidding me? BAM! Down comes the victim card. K. Hate Crimes 101: a hate crime is a violent crime that targets a specific group of individuals and is intended to terrorize the entire community of individuals who belong to that group. So did Cook beat up the priest and take the wafer by force? No. Did Cook rush from the sanctuary elbowing and punching people as he went? No. Are Catholics everywhere, or even this specific congregation, going to thing twice before going to mass next week? I seriously doubt it. In other words not any@#$(@)*where close to being a hate crime.
Does this explain why these people are so against hate crimes legislation? Because they think a hate crime is merely a sacrilegious/derogatory act? What Cook did wasn't even intimidating. Have they considered that some people might feel equally offended they believe they are eating God? When someone is dragged from a worship service and beaten to within an inch of his or her life for believing that a wafer is the whole and complete body of Christ, we can talk about hate crimes.
K. Now I’m pissed.
Chris Buttars, Utah State Senator from West Jordan, is an ass. I have to believe that even wingnuts who support him as a champion of moral causes privately think, "What an ass." Generally I just try and ignore him. Otherwise, I'd be angry all the time, but this just tears it.
Buttars just lost his seat as the chairman of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee. It's about damn time he was sanctioned. Of course, you don't get sanctioned for being a homophobic and racist bigot. Sorry, I meant Champion of Moral Causes. However, you can get sanctioned for unethical behavior, which is only a matter of time when you've got an ego as big as Buttars'. Buttars wrote a letter to a judge, on Senate letterhead, scolding him for ruling against a personal friend (and large campaign contributor) of Buttars' in a land dispute said friend is engaged in with Mapleton city. And here is what Buttars said in that letter that just burns my shorts.
I had hoped that we had appointed a judge that would err on the side of individual rights, not a liberal activist judge who would champion government." (Salt Lake Tribune, 2/26/08)
ARE YOU [expletive deleted] KIDDING ME???!!! This is the [expletive deleted] who introduced a bill to put the kabosh on a recently created domestic partner registry in Salt Lake City. Passed unanimously by the city council, it would allow local businesses to offer domestic partner benefits if they so desire (Salt Lake Tribune, 2/23/2008). What a hypocritical [expletive deleted]. He's only a champion of individual rights if you're rich, white, straight and a campaign contributor. Otherwise, the state (ie. Buttars) gets to decide what constitutes individual rights.
All you have to do is read the news from the last few weeks and any rational, thinking individual would be able to tell the man is clueless, probably a raging narcissist, and has no business in the Senate. He plans to seek re-election, because he knows his critics are unjustified. I think the odds he will get re-elected are actually pretty good, but if by some stroke of luck he should lose, you know it won't be because he's an [expletive deleted]. It will be because his critics sabotaged and slandered him.
Oh, for crying out loud
Can't we just leave Britteny alone, people? She's self-destructed. I get it. She got rich and famous too fast and too young, she apparently didn't have much of a familial foundation to build on and she couldn't manage it and went into a tail spin. Fine. Leave her be and let her try to put her life back together.
It's not that she's the first/only/last person to be unable to manage life. She's not the first to have her children taken by the courts. She's not the first narcissist to live either. She is just one in millions. She's only news worthy because she was once a rising star. She had everything people like to covet: fame, wealth and beauty. Now fame has turned to infamy and we just love that, because we can't stand someone else having what we want.
Frankly, I've got to say those of you petty enough to be gloating over her fall probably don't have the character or the constitution to have pulled it off either.
DROP IT!
So much stupidity. So little time.
I really should be doing homework, but I can't let these things pass.
Praise the Lord and pass the ethanol!
Went to the auto show in town over the weekend. Chevy had ETHANOL plastered over most of their largest vehicles. 'Cause ethanol is the answer to the "oil crisis." Even better it's grown right here the good ol' US of A. Never mind that farmers have stopped growing things like, oh, wheat, so they can grow corn instead. Of course, ranchers, poultry and beef alike, are hoping the rising corn output will reduce feed prices.
<blink>
Really? I thought farmers were planting more corn because the demand has cause prices to increase. They think they'll be able to compete with the US thirst for fuel? Ooohh-K. Watch for food prices to start going up. Essentially we've decided we'd rather drive than eat.
Palm oil is in high demand right now. Apparently it's a good source for biodiesel fuel. In response, palm farmers in the far east are clearing acres and acres of tropical forest to plant palm trees. So we're going to ditch those nasty fossil fuels, but destroy CO2 eating trees in the process. Good choice.
Someone at work a few years back was quite excited about a new engine that ran on nothing but water. Of course there was a big conspiracy to keep said engine from coming to market. Whatever. Let's say there is such and engine and there isn't a conspiracy. Let's say such an engine does come to market. (Indeed, I think I heard some salesman in the Chevy area saying something about an engine whose only output was water vapor.) You think bottled water is expensive now? Can you just imagine a California driving water powered cars in drought years? And you thought rationing water for your lawn was bad.
You can't solve the "oil crisis" by switching fuels. You've got to address the appetite. Of course the worst abusers are the world's wealthy and powerful. Think they'll give up their private jets and start flying (gasp!) first class instead? (Does Airforce One really have to be a 747?) Does anyone really need a BMW M5 except to say, "I have so much money I can afford to buy (and drive) a gas hog and I don't care who knows it?"
Robitusson is a controlled substance. Can I see your ID please?
Apparently Montana's governor is pitching a fit over the new Real ID standards imposed by our beloved Department of Homeland Security. (Gosh. Doesn't the sound of that just warm the heart?) He's decided Montana won't comply and has asked the governors of 17 other states to join him.
Of course the DHS (I really wish it was the Department of Security in the Homeland so I could write DipSHits), is being defensive and snarky, saying it will the the governor's fault when airports backup because anyone without a shiny new Real ID will have to be sidelined and patted down by officials from the DHS as well as have their luggage searched by hand.
The ability to get false identification must end, and Real ID is that step," [DHS spokesperson] said.
Are you kidding me? People create fake passports all the time. How much harder is this new Real ID going to be to fake? How long to you think it will take terrorists and other enterprising (though less dangerous) criminals to figure out a way to do it? Oh, did you miss the part where everyone under the age of 50 will have to reapply for a driver's license and take in a birth certificate and marriage license, where appropriate, to do so? Because birth certificates and marriage licenses are damn near impossible to fake, right? Right?
And how about this little gem?
A DHS policy maker suggested earlier this week that Real IDs could also be required to buy cold medicine and to prove employment eligibility.
Cold medicine. The bane of civilized societies everywhere. And Montana's governor is the only one who thinks this is a bad idea?
I notice Utah wasn't one of the 17 states enjoined by the good governor. Sad, but not terribly surprising.
Department of Homeland Stupidity
Remember when it was enough to say "Restricted Area. Authorized personnel only?" Does anyone have any doubts about what "security breach" implies? You'll be kissing the iron deck before you can say, "Jack Robinson." (Anyone know who Jack Robinson actually is?)
Every time I fly I am reminded what a joke airport security is these days. I bought two small snow-globes while in NY this trip. We neglected to put them in our checked bag because 1. we just didn't think about it and 2. they wouldn't have fit anyway. They were confiscated. Apparently they were worried they were special Batman snow-globes that would have filled the plane with acrid smoke had I thrown them down on the floor and shattered them. They were in D's backpack, who ended up in a different line than I, so I wasn't there for it. Probably just well. I think I would have had a hard time containing my contempt. I doubt there was even 3 oz. of liquid in each one. One of these days some damn fool is going to use his shoe laces to threaten a passenger or crew member with strangulation and no one will be allowed to wear lace up shoes on a plane anymore.
Is this really what we've come to? Does everyone feel safer now?
The irony of software protection schemes.
It would be really interesting to see if all these elaborate protection schemes software manufacturers implement actually help reduce piracy. Generally as soon as someone releases a "new and improved" protection scheme, there is a hack/crack published on the internet within 24 hours, 72 if it's really tough to crack. Thus, anyone determined to piracy is hardly deterred. Legitimate customers, on the other hand, have to put with onerous procedures to install—and in some cases (ie. games) continue to use—their software.
Case in point:
I recently rebuilt my laptop for tedious reasons I'll spare you here. After re-installing my Adobe suite, I fired it up, and put in my serial code.
Problem #1: I purchased this version as an upgrade from my previous version, so the initialization process is asking for the serial number from my previous install.
Problem #2: I am in the middle of a move that is taking the better part of two weeks. My previous serial number is glued to a DVD case that is sitting in storage in a some box. Damn. Well, there's a button here that says, "Finish this later." or something to that effect. Cool.
Clicking button.
"We are sorry. There was an error initializing your trial period. Try rebooting or reinstalling the software to fix this problem."
Grrrrrr. Assuming the issue is the fact that I have already entered the serial number for this version I start the process again and delete the serial number from the input screen before trying to start the trial period.
"We are sorry. There was an error initializing your trial period. Try rebooting or reinstalling the software to fix this problem."
Grrrr!! Reboot.
"We are sorry. There was an error initializing your trial period. Try rebooting or reinstalling the software to fix this problem."
ARRGgggg!!! Restore system to a restore point created before Adobe was installed.
"We are sorry. There was an error initializing your trial period. Try rebooting or reinstalling the software to fix this problem."
AAARRGGgggg!!!!!
After two days of being unable to use any Adobe product, including Acrobat Reader, I finally broke down this morning and uninstalled the suite. It took a whole @$@(#$@#) hour!!
Reboot.
Reinstall.
"We are sorry. There was an error initializing your trial period. Try rebooting or reinstalling the software to fix this problem."
@#$@#$@*@#)(@#%&@#$@#$@*)#(@#&%@)#($@#*%@# $@&#($@*&
The @#$(@* serial number is still there. So somewhere tucked away in the system registry, immune from uninstalling, immune from a system restore is the @#$(@)* serial number which I now cannot get rid of. It will be two-three more days before I can get at the case for my older version and be able to use any Adobe product on my laptop. Thanks Adobe. How many thousands of dollars have I paid you guys only to be presumed a criminal? Bastards.
Of course Microsoft is complicit in this little adventure, because "By God! We have to protect our intellectual property!" Look, I'm all for protecting intellectual property, copyrights and so on. I understand that licensing schemes are more practical to implement than prosecuting actual thieves. I just question whether or not it really works. I am certain it is pissing off your legitimate customers.
Pardon me while my head explodes.
What the hell? Who puts a baby in a microwave? Obviously I am outraged that someone would do that to a helpless infant. But what is just the icing on the cake is it is okay for manifestly incompetent (for whatever reason, legitimate or otherwise) and dangerous people to parent children as long as a penis penetrates a vagina. This may be an extreme case, but incompetent parents are hardly rare. Talk to me some time about the kids I worked with while interning at County Youth Services whose parents had no business making babies.
The right can stop shoveling the bullshit about marriage being about creating a safe environment for raising children. If states asked questions like, "Do you have a mental illness that would cause you to be a danger to your spouse or offspring?" before granting a marriage license, they might have a stronger argument. But they don't. They are not trying to protect marriage. They just want to regulate sex. Tell you what. If straight folk can ever effectively manage their own sexual behavior, maybe I'll listen to their arguments about state regulation of sex acts.
What the hell?
You know, maybe I should be delighted by Bush's new "health care reform." Domestic partner benefits are already considered taxable income. Maybe I should be thinking, "Finally. Straight people are getting a taste of their own medicine." Maybe I should, but I can't. In part because wishing misfortune on others just isn't me. In part because I'd be willing to bet domestic partner benefits will still be exempt from the tax credit.
When Bush's proposal was described to me yesterday, my jaw hit the floor. This is seriously the best Bush can come up with? What does taxing insurance premiums have to do with doing something about lowering medical costs? What does it do for the poor who aren't paying a whole lot in taxes to begin with; who don't have medical coverage and aren't getting the current tax benefit in the first place? Am I the only one who sees Bush's ludicrous "health care reform" as a boon to insurance companies? According to The Washington Post:
Advocates said the proposals would hold down health-care costs by motivating people to seek plans that cost $15,000 or less, and would help put basic insurance within reach of about 5 million of the uninsured (Lee, 2007).
This makes me so angry I'm having a hard time being coherent. Shopping for cheaper health plans doesn't mean getting a better deal. It means doing without. What they are really saying is people should be looking at less comprehensive health plans, opting for the newest offerings for the "price conscious consumer" (read unable to afford anything else): catastrophic medical insurance. Catastrophic medical insurance basically means paying for your basic medical costs out of pocket because the deductibles are so high they're hard to hit. Translation: people shouldn't be spending so much time at the doctor's office and if they have to pay for it out of their own pocket maybe they'll think twice about going.
Yeah. That's going to help the uninsured. If they can't afford medical insurance, they sure as hell aren't going to be able to pay for medical care out of pocket. Or you'll end up like my sister and her self-employed husband who have to budget and schedule medical treatment for their children, including one son's hernia surgery, because even hernia surgery doesn't meet the deductible requirements for their catastrophic medical insurance, the only thing they can afford.
Unless of course you're making enough money that affording insurance isn't a big deal, or your healthy enough that it's easy to come by. Bush's plan will make sure that the only people who have good health coverage are the ones who don't need it. Insurance companies will finally no longer have to pay out all that money for those pesky sick people.
One of my professors, who also has a private practice, made the observation in class yesterday, "I'm not getting paid anymore than I was six years ago. I'm not the reason heath costs are going up."
There are no words.
This is infuriating:
Clergy in New Jersey cannot be required to unite same-sex couples in civil unions, the state attorney general said in a decision that quieted the fears of some religious groups opposed to same-sex ceremonies.
Attorney General Stuart Rabner's legal opinion, sent Thursday to the state registrar of vital statistics, came less than a month after the state became the third to approve civil unions for same-sex couples.
Patrick R. Brannigan, executive director of the New Jersey Catholic Conference, which lobbies on behalf of the state's Roman Catholic dioceses, said Thursday he had feared Catholic clergy could also be accused of hate crimes when they denied requests to perform civil union ceremonies.
Rabner's opinion puts that to rest, he said. "It recognizes our right to practice our faith," Brannigan said.
Forcing clergy to perform civil unions in contradiction of their beliefs has never, never, ever been on the table. Not once. Not for a moment. It has always been about our government treating us like full citizens of our nation. Bullshit like this is nothing more than deliberate pandering to fear and bogeymen by individuals who claim charity and the pure love of Christ hold sway over their hearts and minds.
Let me reiterate once again: most gay and lesbian folk don't give a rats ass about your precious religion. We want no part of it. Those who do continue with their faith in a religion that does not welcome them or respect them as whole children of their god most likely wouldn't do anything that would cause a schism in their church.
Remember those homicidal urges I was talking about? Someone needs a good beating.
I prefer to call it sublimation.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed that my anger tends to flare up at the slightest provocation. Most often I am simply bugged by some frustrating event, such as an anomalous bug in code that is resisting discovery and extinction, or some moron on the road who has obviously disengaged brain and/or backbone before turning the ignition key, or getting caught in a tangled web of university and health insurance bureaucracy that prevented me from getting registered for this semester in a timely fashion. None of these events, however, seems threatening or insulting enough warrant the homicidal urges that seem more than willing to jump to the fore at such moments.
Sometimes I think it's just the result of my being—shall we say—emotionally constipated most of my life. Now that my emotions aren't so buried anymore, I sometimes feel like a teenager (toddler?) trying to figure out what the hell is going on. Still, one of my clients that I am seeing as part of my practicum is an adolescent boy who came in for anger management problems. We've spent time talking about anger being a secondary emotion, that there is usually something going on underneath that we are using anger to protect ourselves from. Most often what is going on is some emotion that makes us feel weak, frightened and/or powerless and anger literally is our own little Incredible Hulk that gives us the fortitude to overcome, or is at least enough of a distraction that we can remain in denial. We've also talked about how whatever set us off is sometimes just the grain of rice that tips the scale and the anger we feel is about other stuff that's out of sight, if not out of mind.
I hardly think it fair that I not be willing to submit to the same self examination that I ask of my clients. In fact, I tend to think that's what makes a good therapist: someone who is as willing to deal with his own issues as he expects his clients to be. I recently spent a fair amount of time pondering the source of these flare ups (while soaking in a hot bath). No matter where I start, I always seem to end up at religion.
Every frustration I have with respect to my current life leads, directly or indirectly, back to religion: social norms that still make it unacceptable to hold my sweetheart's hand in public, efforts to marginalize gay and lesbian Americans into second class citizens, my family's ability to accept my partner so long as we don't appear to be a couple, my frustration with the virtual impossibility of being a father to my children who only visit. I often say that I harbor no ill will toward the church (in my case the LDS church) and by extension to religion in general, but I begin to question now if that is truly the case. It seems the reality is that I'm pretty pissed off.
I still don't believe that outright hostility is the proper expression of these feelings I have. I have not seen one single instance where that has proven an adaptive response. On the contrary, in every case I can think of it has been downright dysfunctional, if for no other reason that the only person who would be harmed is me. I do also make an attempt at being a fair minded individual. I realize that the practice of religion is as diverse as the practice of culture. It is no more useful to stereotype someone as "a Mormon" than it is to stereotype someone as "black."
I end up in conversations with myself about possible explanations for behavior and policy (okay, fine, belief) that I witness. Since the Mormon tradition is the one with which I am most familiar, it is almost always the topic of discussion.
"How can someone claim to have direct access to the mind of God and be so completely wrong on this subject?"
"Maybe it isn't the right time."
"The right time? There has to be a right time to do the right thing?"
"Look at what the Episcopal church is going through. Church leaders are going to avoid that situation like the plague. You know if Gordon came out tomorrow and declared he had received a revelation about the admission of homosexuality the church would be in an uproar. There are too many people who couldn't handle it and would leave."
"So? Let 'em go. Who needs them?"
"I don't know. Maybe they're concerned about splinter groups forming. My guess is it would be the most staunchly radical folk that would leave. Look at all the grief Colorado City has caused over the years. The last thing the church leaders would want to cope with is another fundamentalist splinter group."
"I'm not conviced. Excommuincate them. Disavow any association. Just like they've been doing for decades with polygamists."
"I guess. Maybe they think it's better to keep them in the fold where they can keep an eye on them and have some measure of control."
"So the bigots are managed at the expense of gays and lesbians who want nothing more than to be accepted in their families and religion of origin. Sounds a bit like casting your pearls before swine to me."
"Well, maybe they feel some responsibility. The church wasn't all that gay friendly from about the late 50s until about 2000 or so. There is some evidence they were downright hostile. Maybe they're trying to undo what they've done."
"So what you're saying is they have their balls caught in a vice of their own making and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them."
"Ummm...."
"Yeah. Not gonna happen."