note to fundamentalists

Hey, y'all, been a while. Sorry. This is just a thought I had.

Having grown up during the Reagan years, I'm well acquainted with the whole Revelations-Doomsday-Apocalypse thing. I dont believe it, but I'm aquainted with it.
Unfortunately, I know there are a lot of people out there who do believe it, some of them officeholders. So I've got a question for you:

When the Dragon comes, do think he will appear to be evil? This is supposed to be the spawn of the Father of Lies, after all. Do you think that because you believe in Jesus you'll magically see right through the mask? Ask yourself, if you were the Antichrist, how would you go about getting the power to bring about the end of the world? Would you organize a small band of religious fanatics to goad the world nations into starting the Final War, or would you achieve a position of leadership within a nuclear Power, and start it yourself?
What world leader can you think of that seems to always come down on the side of Chaos and War? Iran's President Ahmadinejad, perhaps? Perhaps, but he doesnt have much power to be seen all over the world, and despite his high office, the real rulers in Iran are still the clerics.
No, we need someone who leads the world, not just sways public opinion in the Muslim world. Some one who holds real power, and is gathering more of it. Someone with his finger on the button, so to speak.

You can see where I'm going with this, cant you? You're probably getting pretty steamed at my suggestion that our Great and Godly President is instead the Beast. So I ask you, how exactly has George Bush shown himself to be a Godly Man?
By his confession of Faith? Hey, guess what? I believe in God and Jesus, praise His name! See how easy that was?
I know, it's because he opposes things such as abortion and stem cell research, right? Well, so what. The Antichrist could do that to. After all, it's really just trading "innocent" deaths now for potentially guilty or painful early deaths later on, all the better for dear old Dad. A win-win scenario, if I ever heard one.
Is it because he supports Israel, land of God's Chosen People? Doesnt that apply equally well to Ted Kennedy, whom many Conservatives view as the 2nd cousin to the Antichrist?

Let's go back to the phrase I used earlier: Chaos and War. Since he's been in office, has George Bush done anything that hasnt led to chaos or conflict.
It could be argued that 9-11 occured on his watch because he ignored warnings of imminent attack in favor of concentrating on tax cuts (tax cuts which he achieved, by the way, and which will lead to great hardship for our children, should any survive).
The military is stretched thin fighting a unwinnable war (poorly planned from the start) in a place we never should have gone in the first place, where the use of torture has been routine.
Remember Katrina? FEMA turned away voluteers! Need I say more?
And how about that Medicare Prescription "reform"? Chaos bureaucratized.
Or maybe No Child Left Behind, which makes it illegal to kick disruptive children out of public (but not private) schools.
Please, please show me something good that has come out of the Bush Administration, something uniquely his, please! Something that the Democrats couldnt possibly have come up with, something Positive, not negative.

I dont think you can, because Lord Bush and his Cabal dont do Positive. They are not about the Possible, they are about the Forbidden. Taxes to pay for public services? Forbidden! Potentially life-saving medical research using human cells which are doomed anyway? Forbidden! Unions between two people who love each other and wish to commit that love legally? Forbidden! if they arent one man and one woman (so explain why this bunch still exists) Sharing of music which you probably would never have bought anyway? Forbidden! and with heavy penalties, too.

Hello?

Are there still any Fundamentalsists reading this? Gone off in a huff? Well, here's what I'm thinking. The BushCorp has come down against Peace. No, I dont think Dubya's the Antichrist, despite the 6-6-6 name thing (G-e-o-r-g-e W-a-l-k-e-r B-u-s-h, j-r) (or P-i-e-r-c-e, if you go matrilinear). I will consider the idea that he's Evil, though.
How anyone can call himself a Man of God, then support the bombing of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure used by guilty and innocent alike? How can a "good man" say peace can only be talked about if the other side gives up, and otherwise not just let, but approve of the continued killing?

If God really has seen George's message, and approves of it, then God is an Asshole.

Now, I'm about done here for now. I'll leave you with something I found, which gives a different twist to the apocalypse. I think you'll enjoy it, assuming you're not a True Believer. If you are, then you might want to give it some thought anyway.

Oh, one last thing for all the Apocalyptophiles out there: Supposing the antics of your Boy do lead to Armageddon? Suppose a nuclear exchange is made, madness sweeps the globe, armies march and billions die? And suppose as all this is going on, you're sitting there in your I ♥ Jesus t-shirt, waiting to be lifted up to Heaven, and He never comes?

Maybe, even so, you'll still believe in a coming Day of Judgement, when you stand before God and have your life shown to you before recieving your Just Reward. Ask yourself this, will you have worked for Love and the betterment of your fellow humans? Or will you have judged them inferior, worthy of death, and then worked to make sure they got what you felt was their due? For your sake, I hope you're right, and God really is as big a prick as the tiny little box you've stuffed him into allows him to be.

But I doubt it.

---

Okay, one last question. If your goal was the distruction of all of God's work, and you took malicious pleasure in that destruction, then where would you have your minions concentrate a lot of their efforts? What could bring you greater pleasure than to turn the Instrument of God to the destruction of his Work?
Then ask yourself this: how many of our current supposedly Christian Leaders actually follow the teachings of Jesus, and how many of them follow a dogma twisted from the Old Testement which has nothing to do with the Love and Acceptance preached by the Son of God?

Oh, never mind. You're not listening. Because you know, dont you. Someone told you, and you believe.

more fun

Okay, see, this is really funny, so I'm stealing it from Dusty.

cartoon fun

All this stuff came from an apparently defunct site called "Not Your Father's America"

What really killed the Neanderthal

Yeah, I know, it's old news, but I thought of it, and created it, and now I'm sharing it. So there.

sad, but too true

funny

Hey Kids! It's time for Mr. Metaphor!

Todays metaphor: the United States of America as a human body!

Let's start with genetics. Does the American body have good genes? You betcha! Does this mean that it's a pure breed, like a holstien or an alsatian? No, humans dont do very well when they try to breed "pure" (google "european royalty and inbreeding" or "nazis" for examples of what can happen), and to be honest, neither do dogs, really (see alsatians; hip problems). If you want a healthy, clever dog, go get a mutt. That's what America is, a mongrel nation, and it's stronger for it. Dont listen to David Duke and his ilk, they dont know anything about genetics, just appearance.

But now we come to trouble. While America certainly has started out with a fairly healthy body, I'm afraid it's let itself go. How? Well, gluttony, really. There was so much to consume, and America just couldnt seem to help itself. Like some kid from a rich suburb, America had it pretty easy growing up. Everything it wanted was right there, ripe for the picking. Sometimes it seemed like it barely had to work at all (as you may know, in it's younger years, it even had servants). And so consume it did. A lot. America is now the worlds greatest consumer. As you might expect from all this consumption, it's gotten kind of fat. And lazy. Now it spends a lot of its time sitting around its house, watching TV and whining about the mess. Most of America's energy is now spent on entertaining itself, eating, and hypochondria. It used to take pride in its jack-of-all-trades abilities, but now it just buys its stuff from others (mostly on credit).

Of course, most people can tell you what this type of lifestyle can lead to. America's heart now seems to be nearly non-existent, and something has gone terribly wrong in it's head. Fat people often have problems with strokes, so perhaps that would explain the strange behavior that seems to be coming from the right side of America's brain, but which has apparently paralyzed the left side of its body.

Now, a lot of people might say that America's doomed, that while America might respond that it feels fine, anyone can tell you that you need both sides of the body to be working to be a whole person. And with a bit of exercise and discipline, maybe a bit of research and implimentation of some good behavior habits, America could be as good as new. All it takes is the will to do it.

Will America be able to do it?

Oh, look! Lost is on!

today's lame diatribe

I've been working on this for a while, then went and said twice as much in half the time on UWL's site. Now this feels anti-climactic, but I'll post it anyway...

Here's what I've got to say about the situation in North Korea:

See, there's this trigger-happy idealogue running the Country largely for his own pleasure and that of his Cronies. These martial maniacs make nuclear-tipped threats, and carry out their militaristic fantasies despite overwhelming world opinion to the contrary. They seem, in fact, to welcome the world's censure, as if that somehow justifies their actions. They pursue these objectives despite the damage done to their own economy and citizens, while their Cabal-controlled Media tells everyone how rosy their lives are, and how the lies of their enemies are an attempt to destroy the State and everything it's Citizens love and believe in. In reality, of course, their "enemies", i.e., the rest of the world, would simply like the Leader to stop acting so crazy and play ball with the rest of the world, rather than strutting around with his chest puffed out, threatening folks.

And the Koreans arent any better. Why they insist on pushing people's buttons the way they do can only be explained by macho bluster, stupidity, or careful study of Republican Political tactics.

Still, Lord Bush insists on telling the North Koreans (and everybody else), "You do what I'm tellin' you, then maybe we'll see about givin' you a little somethin'."
Now, before anyone starts telling me that I'm a traitorous scumbag who wants to see our babies die in the last nuclear gasp of Communism, let me say that I think that the Koreans need to put away their little atomic toys before they hurt someone, and force the world to kick their asses into a sea of glass (and thereby, maybe, taking care of our little global warming problem, after a few weeks spent carefully indoors). But America also needs to realize that it's not up to us, who recently shook our radioactive fist at Iran, to do so. We've lost the moral ground to stand on. China, their neighbor, and who has more to lose, should be the ones dealing with it.

We need to back off, shut up, and quit giving the world a reason to roll its collective eyes.

an idea to mull over

I had an insight today, perhaps. I was discussing "The Da Vinci Code" with a co-worker, and I said, "I dont see what the Religious fuss was all about. Whether he was married or not, they're still the same Words of Wisdom."
She responded that it did make a difference, because as it stands now, Jesus is Divine (which apparently you cant be if you have kids)(which stands to reason, I guess; I certainly question my own wisdom in doing so, sometimes).
I said that it shouldnt matter who he was, but what he said. She said, no, it's who he was that matters.

So now I wonder if this explains the 30% or so of people who still doggedly cling to the notion that George Bush is not only doing a good job, but is a great President. Because maybe, like the co-worker, they dont pay attention to the Words, but just see the Authority, and that's all they need. It doesnt seem to matter whether it's Jesus, or Lord Bush; they are Right, because they are in a position of Rightness. (Need I add, that co-worker is a conservative?)

Personally, I am stunned by this revelation. The idea that the Person gives validity to the Words, rather than the other way around, strikes me as so absolutely antithetical to the American Way, that I am still having a hard time comprehending the attitude in someone who was born and raised here. On the other hand, it explains a great deal about how the BushCo, and the Republican Party, manage to maintain their positions of leadership, despite a growing list of lies, scandals and outright crimes: their base belives that The Person gives validity to the Action.
This also explains why Democrats are so easily dismissed by these people, since the same attitude works in reverse. Nothing "Liberals" do can be OK, because Liberals themselves are not OK. The Person gives validity (or NON-validity) to the Action.

Whatever happened to the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words"?

When Authority is considered to be basis for Rightness, this can only lead to one end: Might Makes Right. And, yet again, this is another phrase that could be applied quite easily to the current Republican leadership. They have the majority, and show no interest in compromise or statesmanship. They are winner take all, and piss on the loser.

It also, I suspect, will lead to an Aristocracy. It may have already come to that, considering the number of children (or other family) of famous people, who are themselves famous despite having no discernable talents (like Paris Hilton, or George Bush). We cannot allow this state to continue. American has never actually been much of a meritocracy, but it has at least tried to be. Now I'm not even sure that this is true anymore. Here's a definition for you:

Aristocracy: A privileged social class who own a large share of a society's wealth, prestige, educational attainment and political influence acquired mostly through gift or inheritance from a long line of privileged and cultivated ancestors. And a form of government in which the state is effectively controlled by the members of such a class.

Does this sound a bit familiar?

When this is the political state in America, it will be dead (or at least buried). Right now, I think that we're sitting at the bottom of a hole, six feet deep, looking up at a bunch of guys in suits holding shovels full of dirt.

Lay to Rest

Here is the level of distrust I have for the current administration: Upon hearing that Ken Lay had died, my first thought was that the BushCo had faked his death, and that soon he and his money would be occupying some quietly expensive hideaway somewhere in the world far away from nasty old American prisons.
Ridiculous! Except, as absurd as it sounds, I wouldnt put it past Lord Bush and his Cabal to do such a thing. After all, despite politically expedient denials, Ken Lay was a FOG (an appropriate term, considering, eh, especially considering his involvement in the Secret Energy Taskforce), and the Bush Administration does reward bad behavior.

Still, I'm crazy on this one, definitely. I am. Really.

Still, if I hear that Jack Abramoff died suddenly, and that he didnt rat any Republicans out before he did, I may have to take off my tin-foil hat, and declare it to be a reasonable idea after all.

---

Addendum:
Okay, here's the kind of thing that just feeds fuel to my fire. As Dusty points out briefly in the comments (and the Dallas Whoring News points out more thoroughly), because Lay died before he could appeal his conviction, then legal precedent says he's not really guilty, because he's not able to refute the case, since he's dead and all. And since he dropped dead before his sentencing, he's not yet "officially" convicted, so any claim that the government may have made upon his assets to repay a part of the billions he cheated creditors out of will now be disallowed. Isnt that convienient?

The quote of the day

This would have been more appropriate yesterday, but still, I am stealing this from the Rude Pundit, who... prefers, as ever, Kurt Vonnegut's take on celebrating war in Cat's Cradle. It's becoming a yearly tradition here, sort of a "Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus" for the rude:

"We are gathered here, friends," he said, "to honor lo Hoon-year Mora-toorz tut Zamoo-cratz-ya, children dead, all dead, all murdered in war. It is customary on days like this to call such lost children men. I am unable to call them men for this simple reason: that in the same war in which lo Hoon-year Mora-toorz tut Zamoo-cratz-ya died, my own son died."

My soul insists that I mourn not a man but a child.

"I do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic holidays.

"But they are murdered children all the same.

"And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might best spend the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind.

"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns.

"I do not mean to be ungrateful for the fine, martial show we are about to see – and a thrilling show it really will be…"

He looked each of us in the eye, and then he commented very softly, throwing it away, "And hooray I say for thrilling shows."

We had to strain our ears to hear what Minton said next.

"But if today is really in honor of a hundred children murdered in war," he said, "is today a day for a thrilling show?

"The answer is yes, on one condition: that we, the celebrants are working consciously and tirelessly to reduce the stupidity and viciousness of ourselves and all mankind."

The State of War

Something that just occurred to me as I was commenting on the post below:

For the last few decades, the Conservatives of this country have been running the so-called "War on Drugs", and have failed spectacularly. What on Earth was the country thinking when they put them in charge of the "War on Terror"?

Of course, it could be argued that the War on Drugs was just a sham, designed to maintain the military/industrial complex as the Cold War wound down. Certainly we seem to have gone from one unending war to the next, all of which have been good for the GOP, increasingly bad for the Constitution, and which have contained steadily decreasing levels of sense and effectiveness. (One can only hope that the War on Terror goes on forever, I shudder to think what the next "War" will be on, and how it will affect us.)

simple terms

Here, boiled down to the basics, is why I prefer Democrats to Republicans:

Democrats are all about doing what's possible, however stupid it may be, and however corrupt they may sometimes be while they do it.

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be all about stopping people from doing what's possible in favor of doing what falls within a narrow definition of what's "right". This makes the standard stupidity and corruption of the political class all the more galling, especially since Republicans seem to feel themselves to be exempt from their own rules about "right" and "wrong".

If you think I'm wrong, look at the current agenda of the Republican Party: Amendments or laws against things; like gay marriage, or flag burning, or immigration, or abortion, or free speech, or whatever.
The exception: Money. Republicans love money. So much so that anything that makes money is A-OK with them, as long as those making the money (as opposed to those doing the work that produces the money) get to keep the money.
That's another thing they're against. A fair distribution of wealth.