Two Things

Okay, I've got two things I want to talk about.

First, today is the National Day of Reason. This day is observed in response to the National Day of Prayer, the national holiday declared in 1952 when Harry Truman and the 82nd United States Congress decided that pesky First Amendment was just getting in the way of all the state-sponsored religious fun they could be having. Personally, I'm going to celebrate it by telling random strangers that I think that the separation of church and state is super neat-o keen! So go out and proclaim your love of the Establishment Clause today (and if someone tries to pull the "fact" out of their ass that the Constitutional Convention began with a prayer, you can tell them that was a myth, and what really happened: that Benjamin Franklin suggested this and the rest of the representatives did their best to ignore him and move on). And for those who can't see how having a state-funded day of prayer is offensive, apply this simple test to see if your religious authority has overstepped its bounds. Simply change all references to the religion in question to references to Scientology. If you are appalled, then now you know how the rest of us feel. Please enjoy your Scientology Day of Thetan Acquiescence Auditing.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am now the top result in the Canadian version of Google for the search string "is there such thing as a purple cat" (in American Google, I'm only the second, boo). I know this because some enterprising young Canadian (I'm actually just assuming on all three of those, actually) found my blog using just such a string, and being so enterprising, and young, and Canadian, clicked on the first link and found themselves on this very blog. Of course, they didn't stay long, as the only thing on the page was a ridiculous short story about doobies and detectives, and absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of violet-colored felines, and thus exited the page, perhaps cursing themselves for being a bit too enterprising for so quickly clicking on such obvious twaddle. Well, nuts to you, my annoyingly enterprising friend from the Great White North, but thank you for bringing to my attention my prominent status in those fine frozen servers that make up Canadian Google. In celebration of this event, I have created the following graphic:







People of Canada, consider this picture to be my gift to you. Here at last is the proof that not only does the purple cat exist, but it is Canadian too! And for your generosity, perhaps I'll mention something about Alberta in my next Shandley short.

Okay, I know it seems like I've been having a bit of fun at the expense of Canada, so as a show of good faith I would like you all to please rise for the Canadian National Anthem. This is definitely not a joke.





See? What could possibly be more serious than that?

Just How Deep Does the Rabbit Hole Go?

If you live in California, in the weeks leading up the last election you probably saw this commercial for goddamned Proposition 8 where a Massachusetts couple claims that their child was forced, apparently at gunpoint, to read gay porn in the guise of children's book (I'm not going to link to the video, because I don't want Youtube to think I'm some sort of crazy bigot, and start recommending me the KKK's channel or something). Of course, their claim was cleaned up a bit, their claim of hardcore pornography changed to "pro-gay literature" so that they wouldn't come off as obvious psychopaths.

Let's set aside the issues of free speech and censorship. Not even going to talk about it, for the moment it doesn't matter. Let's also set aside the fact that the book is obviously not a propaganda piece, but rather just an exposure to an alternative lifestyle. Let's set aside the fact that the book wasn't part of the school's curriculum, and belonged to one of the students who requested that the teacher read it. Let's even set aside the fact that the supposedly persecuted parents were the only ones actually making threats in the whole affair. All of these are good enough reasons to discount the opinions of these people, but that's not what I want to discuss right now. That discussion has already taken place, and I have nothing to add to it. No, I want to talk about their motives.

Given their persecution complex and ridiculously outspoken bigotry, it shouldn't surprise you to learn that this couple is Mormon. Within its history, Mormonism has always hid its wrongdoings under the cloak of the perceived religious intolerance against them. They whine that the entire state of Missouri declared war on them, neglecting to mention that war was started because they were stealing land in a violent coup. They point out that the country sent an army to kill Brigham Young, but leave out that he had sent the appointed governors back to Washington to deliver the message that if any further government officials were sent, they would be delivered back home in very small boxes. And recently, a white powdery substance was apparently delivered to the Mormon temples in California and Salt Lake, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were an inside job to garner sympathy for there cause in what has become a very hostile climate.

At this point, the Devil's Advocate jumps in to say, "So what if they're Mormon? Does that make them bad people?" No, not all Mormons are bad people. In fact, a few of them aren't even retarded! However this couple's response is the typical stratagem (Note the use of the singular, that's what we like to call wit!) of the Mormon organization. In fact one might begin to think that perhaps the couple might be insiders, taking their orders from within the superstructure of the Mormon church.

And one would be right. A recent memo from within the ranks of the Mormon church has been exposed, outlining their anti-gay twelve year plan. This memo mentions a man named Dick Wirthlin as a key member of the initiative. Turns out Dick's nephew is the man appearing in these inflammatory videos. And just who the hell is dear old Uncle Dick anyway? Ol' Dick Wirthlin at the time was a General Authority in the Church of Too Fucking Long a Name. To those who don't speak Mormonese, he's the equivalent of a Cardinal in the Catholic Church, pretty high up indeed.

Now here's the kicker, this memo was dated March 4, 1997. The Wirthlins filed their complaint in 2006. These people spent 9 years waiting for something vaguely offensive to happen so that they could scream about it loud enough to get national attention. And then all that media attention was wrapped up with a nice little bow and fed to an unwary public to pass a hateful piece of legislature.

This couple is just another arm of the Mormon church, whose influence has finally stepped just far enough over the line to gain some attention. In fact, as we speak this I-can't-believe-I'm-still-calling-it-a-church is being investigated for election fraud. Apparently they only reported five thousand dollars in contributions. For someone like me, who has seen first hand the organization of the Mormon wing of this campaign through my family, that number is almost precious. It's like asking a little kid how old they think the earth is, and they reply, "weally old, like a hundwed years!" You can't help but laugh at the naivete of someone who thought that number seemed plausible. Their budget is full of huge holes and unrecorded expenses, and one way or another, the Mormon Church is going to pay.

So to everyone who said that the Mormon Church wasn't that involved in Prop 8, you can kiss my ass. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't just a smoking gun. This is the moment caught on video camera, clear as day, and the Mormon church was caught holding the gun, masturbating on the corpse. And this is me flipping the bird at my childhood religion and saying, "Guess what, buddy? You're fucked."

And this is only the beginning.

Obama vs McCain, Round 2

Just had a few thoughts I wanted to share on the recent debate. I really don’t want this to turn into a political blog, but again, there’s not really much to talk about. I’ll try to keep things brief, and so as not to come off as an asshole, I’m going to try to leave my personal opinions out of it. This should be pretty easy, as I don’t really have any strong opinions on either of these candidates.

So, here we have the second presidential debate. The format of the first one I thought gave a slight edge to Obama, a formal setting with strict rules and guidelines, and since his campaign has been focusing on directly addressing the issues, this would appear to be his forte. And I think it is fair to say that in the minds of all those who aren’t blinded by partisan loyalty, Obama came out the winner that night. Tonight’s debate, I thought, would give the edge to McCain, as he has spent his whole campaign basically trying to befriend the American voters. I was interested to see how McCain would handle himself in this more comfortable, loose, roundtable type setting. I was surprised to see Obama pretty much blow him out of the water.

This was an Obama unlike we’ve seen before. Sure, he’s criticized McCain in the past, but never on this level. Normally I tend to be turned off by attack politics, but in this debate format it absolutely worked, and it was exactly the right time for Obama to take this strategy. McCain, on the other hand, I thought came off as weak and kind of pathetic. He kept cracking unfunny jokes to a deathly silent room, and when Obama broke the formula by essentially assigning himself some time for a rebuttal, McCain was actually whining that he was breaking the rules.

Personally, I thought Obama went a little too far in places, especially when he pretty much laid the blame for the Iraq war at McCain’s feet, but it really doesn’t matter what I think. To the American public the point has been made. Obama demonstrated the strength that voters want to see in the President, and McCain demonstrated that he is Michael Scott from the Office (Thursday nights on NBC!). Based on tonight, I think now is probably a good time for the White House to start printing letterheads reading “President Barack Obama.”

Because you really can’t have enough letterheads.

So It's Come To This...

I usually don’t like to talk about politics. People say this is because I am uninformed or apathetic, but neither is true. The real reason is because politics is where logic goes to die. It is a place where men of conviction solve their differences through sheer bluster and gnashing of teeth. Whenever I see a political “debate” all I can think of is French absurdists trying to determine whose hot air balloon is the fastest by throwing big piles of shoes at each other (maybe that metaphor is a bit too obtuse, point is these free soapbox hours are about the farthest you can get from an actual debate). I see all these things going on in the world, and then I ask the people who desire to represent me, what are you going to do about this? And all I hear is the constant warbling of turkeys.

This election year is being touted as the most important election of all time. Though I doubt that, as every election has been trumpeted as such since the beginning of our governmental system, it at least seems to be the one that weighs most heavily on the mind of the average citizen. The world scene has been eclipsed by this election, it casts a shadow which blots out all other news. Lots and lots of people are talking about little else. So, as I sit here, plotting my triumphant return from my long absence, it seem at last unavoidable, I must discuss that which I dread: the machinations of those who wish to rule.

First, I would like to talk about Sarah Palin. Actually, that is a lie; it is more like I must talk about Sarah Palin, and I’d like to get it out of the way. When she was first announced, my first reaction was, “who?” My next reaction was that of intrigue, at this handsome, well-groomed woman who kills moose with her bare hands. Then there was that period for the next couple of weeks where a new scandal would break about her every two hours. I mostly ignored these as reactionary hearsay, but I started to become worried that a few of these were sticking around, despite the fact that nobody cared anymore. In fact, the book banning and law enforcement scandals now appear to actually be backed up by credible evidence, yet nothing has come of it because the country has moved on to other things. As the weeks passed, I kept a suspicious eye on Ms. Palin, until finally that fateful interview aired. At last the truth came out: she is a dunderhead.

This woman is quite possibly the only Republican dumber than George W. Bush. It was obvious from the beginning that she was a half-assed publicity stunt, but good god, she is dumber than a bag of wet coats. She is a hand puppet being held up by a hand puppet. Honestly, I’m not sure she even realizes she’s running for Vice-President; it’s possible she thinks John McCain is some kind of magical troll who will grant her wishes if she says nice things about him.

Which brings us to McCain. What the fuck happened to this guy? A few years ago, he seemed like he had a pretty good head on his shoulders. True, I didn’t always agree with the guy, but at least he had the balls to be a pro-choice Republican. This guy didn’t care who he pissed off, and he made his own decisions. I don’t know if he suddenly incurred a large debt to the Republican National Committee, or if he’s just gone senile, but in his current state, McCain is just sad. They’ve made him fall in line idealistically with Bush, and when they forced Sarah Palin on him, they just cut off his balls completely.

Moving on, let’s talk about the economy. The economy sucks.

What? You wanted more? Ugh, fine.

As I am apparently a fierce goddamn romantic, I tend to see things in metaphor. And to me, the economy is a great big solid oak table, well built, and cluttered with stuff. The only problem is right now one of the legs is mottled and cracked, covered with duct tape and constantly creaking and quivering. If I were a self-important political cartoonist, the leg would be holding up a sign that says “Wall Street.” Now Congress has a choice. They can either put 700 billion dollars worth of duct tape on that leg, which ought to hold it for a while, or they can stand around and do nothing and wait for it to break (I guess the table metaphor isn’t perfect, because there’s no real world equivalent for “rip the leg off and replace it with a sturdy piece of wood,” but I still like it). Now, when the leg breaks, all the shit on the leg is going to come crashing down all over the fucking place: a catastrophe, right? Well, not really. I mean, most of that stuff was just books, so you can just pick them up and put them back on the table. True, your grandmother’s antique tea set is ruined, and you had a really nice watch sitting there that wasn’t shock resistant and now it keeps weird time, and you really wish you still had these things, but fuck, life goes on. There’s not going to be a depression over this crisis, it’s just a case of some idiots wanted to get richer, so they wished some phantom money into existence. It never occurred to them that that money would have to come from somewhere, and since it didn’t, the money turned back into ghosts, who stuffed their pockets with money and flew back away to whatever dimension they came from. Sure, I feel bad for the people who actually trusted and rely on those banks, but you can’t protect everybody from everything. Either way, bailout or no bailout, I think I’ll probably just take this thing in stride.

I suppose I should say something about the Democratic ticket. I feel the same way about Obama that I used to feel about McCain: his views skew a bit more liberal than mine, but he’s a real, intelligent person who is not just at the end of the strings of his political party. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Joe Biden. It could come out that Biden was at Disneyland, shitting into his hand and throwing it at people, and it still would not be enough to get me to care one way or the other about him.

So now you know how I feel about that thing that everyone’s talking about. I hope you enjoyed it. Now fuck off.

Anarchy For Dummies: Weighing In on Gun Control

I do not own a firearm, nor do I have any plans to ever purchase one. I do not trust myself to operate a firearm safely, so I just don’t want to have one around. I don’t see the point of hunting, and I don’t shoot recreationally. I like John Woo movies, but that’s pretty much the extent of my personal appreciation of guns. Given this, I don’t think I could possibly be labeled as a gun enthusiast, or whatever euphemism or pejorative your personal preference would dictate. I mention this because I have a rather strong, perhaps even unique, stance on gun control, and I don’t want to be dismissed out of hand. My stance is this: there should be no gun control whatsoever.

Pro-gun lobbyists have their points about defense and protection, and the anti-gun lobby has its points about safety and crime. These arguments don’t really intersect in any meaningful way, so this line of inquiry is mostly moot, becoming little more than an overblown shouting match. Like most people, I think one side has a better argument in this regard, but my opinion isn’t really important. Facts are important. Watching people argue their opinions on gun control is a lot like watching a debate between Coke and Pepsi; it’s a matter of personal preference, and not likely to be resolved in this way.

Perhaps realizing this, both sides scramble to find an authority to support their claim. And when discussing possible legislature in this country, there is no higher authority than the Constitution. Thus arises the battle over which side is supported by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Before going any further, let’s take a look at the text of this troublesome clause. The Second Amendment, in its entirety, reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The point of contention here is that some people feel that “shall not be infringed” can be interpreted to mean, “can be infringed if you feel like it.” Some people think that it only applies to the military, despite the fact that it protects “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

Now, maybe you think I’m not being fair. Maybe you think there’s some subtle nuance I’m missing in the wording, or that something is lost in the translation due to antiquated language. I’ll be the first to admit that the Constitution is not perfect. That’s not just a figure of speech, I mean that you’d actually be hard pressed to find someone who thinks the Constitution isn’t perfect. Despite this, no document is going to be completely relevant to its people 200 years later. In this case, however, it may be more relevant than ever.

Maybe the reason there is so much quibbling over the wording is the fact that it seems to equate the militia and the people. One side or the other of this debate feels the need to emphasize one aspect, either militia or people, over the other. To attain a deeper understanding of the meaning of the, one must evaluate the cultural context. Militia and people are equated in the document because in the 18th century, they were the same thing. One notion that is mistakenly made is that their usage of the word militia means the same thing as “military.” This could not be farther from the truth. When the Constitution was in the process of being ratified, there was great concern over the power of the federal government going unchecked, which is why the Bill of Rights was drafted. Representatives were nervous about the possibility of a large national army gaining too much power, so they insisted that the citizens be permitted to fight back should the occasion arise. The dangers of excessive force were still fresh in their minds.

Historically, the most fascist governments are the ones that earned their power on the good will and confidence of their people. The banner of freedom can easily be made to prop open the door to tyranny. Our country was never meant to meddle outside its own affairs. We were never intended to be a major player on the world stage. Our current policy of expansionism requires a large military force, a force which has no problem placing a towel over someone’s face and forcing water down their throat. How long can such a force maintain our best interests? It is not unreasonable to think that in 50 or 100 years that power could be turned inward to suppress its own people. This is the real reason the framers of the constitution sought to arm the people of their country, to protect citizens from their own government.
It has been pointed out that countries that have strict gun control have not slid into fascism, but none of these countries have the most powerful military in the entire world. Australia, Canada, Spain, Germany, these are not the countries you think of when you hear the phrase “military might.”

The idea of overthrowing the US government is certainly not a popular one, and I’m not suggesting it. The first amendment is still alive and kicking in this country, though privacy has certainly taken a hit. And while I hope that our freedoms continue to be protected, we shouldn’t just assume they will. Obviously the decision to enact violence is not one to be taken lightly. We should take our cues from the early days of our country, which suffered years of abuse and pursued every possible peaceful resolution before finally taking up arms. However, if the government fails us, and we have no options left but to organize a militia, I’d like for them to be armed with something better than single shot hunting rifles.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” This quote has been taken out of context and used to justify just about every war our country has entered since these words were published after his death. What Jefferson actually wrote those words in regards to was Daniel Shays’ rebellion in Massachusetts. He felt that the revolutionaries had been misinformed, however he applauded their resolve. Their passion served as a warning to the government that its people were not complacent, and would not allow themselves to be suppressed. A progressive government is one that fears its people.

I’m not a frightening person, and I don’t know any one person that the government would be afraid of. But if the power structure ever grows too big and threatens to trample us, we will stand united against it. And if that fails, we’ll stand united with some really big guns.

A Reasonable Challenge

They say the two things you should never argue with anyone are religion and politics. These are said to be the two topics most likely to cause strife amongst otherwise friendly individuals, because in most cases the person has already made up their mind. But why would you make up your mind about something before you've even heard all the facts? And why bother even making up your mind in the first place, when new information could always come up?

The world is a complicated place, and it is often difficult to arrive at the truth. So, most people prefer to have the truth told to them. They latch on to the first person or group that seems to know what's going on and they parrot that entity's opinions as their own. And the worst thing is, everyone alive today has likely done this at one point or another.

Which isn't to say borrowing an opinion or two is a bad thing, far from it. There's a good chance that if you have any opinion on anything, there's going to be a decent number of people who share it with you. Hell, it's pretty likely that you'll find some people that agree with a lot of your opinions, which is fine, the problem is when you take it to the extreme.

The problem is compounded when we decide to make compromises. Maybe your affiliated political party takes a stance on social issues that you strongly agree with, and though you disagree with their economic stances you still support them because of how strongly you feel about their social agenda. Listen to me, you don't have to do this! Supporting the lesser of two evils only perpetuates more evil, it makes it easier for the evil to slip in. We've lost ourselves so much in the process of governing, and all the posturing that goes with it, that we've forgotten that it's supposed to be about results. We are no longer a government by, for, and of the people, but by the people, for the majority, and of the status quo. This is not how civilizations advance, this is not how we forge new truths about ourselves and our world. But we can get back on track, if we follow some simple steps.

First off, we need to forget the phrase, "I can't make a difference, I'm only one person." This is the rallying cry of the anti-revolutionaries, the banner of the banal, the perpetuator of the pragmatic. This is the reason we have two big political parties who justify their existence mainly as an attempt to piss off the other one. These people are so concerned with garnering votes and perpetuating their public selves that they no longer have any souls. They make all their decisions based on being as inoffensive as possible, and to get your vote they will lie straight to your face. And if you're casting your vote based on who is more likely to win, then guess what, you're one of them. Besides, if you believe your vote is just a drop in the sea anyway, then it doesn't matter where you put your drop, right? Better to vote for what you believe in, and wait for the world to do the same.

But what do you believe in now? Not so easy now that you're thinking on your own, is it? Well, don't sweat it too much, just do what you should do in any difficult situation, start small. Pick any single, specific issue, and just research the fuck out of it. Read the arguments of both sides, and read the rebuttals to those arguments. Try to search out anything you can find on it, no matter how small, no matter how crazy the opinions you find. Just bury yourself in information about this one thing, and eventually things will start to look clear. Don't worry, you don't have to do this every time, because eventually you'll start to see patterns. You'll recognize phrases that should raise a red flag, or you'll discover what kind of wording someone will use when they're trying to hide something. And it will get easier and easier to craft an informed opinion.

Now, as I mentioned up front, the hardest thing to do in the world is to change a person's mind once they've already made it up, so I'm not deluded enough to think that I'm going to make much of a difference here. In fact, there's a very good chance I'm simply shouting into the dark. But here I am, because even if I can't solve the problem, at least I don't have to be a part of it. If I can get through to even one person, that's fantastic, but even if not, I can rest easy tonight knowing that at least I tried.