The Absence Of Evidence...

...Is not the evidence of absence!

In the wake of John's hiatus, I began frequenting a blog run by a fundamentalist Christan to sate my rhetorical blood lust. Regarding the media's attitude towards homosexuality, Sola quoted this passage from Paul:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).

At first I glanced at this, later I really read through and pondered it. Looking at this passage critically, as a student of history, I can't accept this at face value.

I figure that Paul is criticising the Hellenistic/Roman culture that was seeping into his own at this point in history. Paul was a devout Jew, and later a devout Christian,  and the values of the decadent Romanized world didn't jive with traditional Jewish values. Now, when it comes to homosexuality I can understand Paul's point. We've all heard a hundred times about the Greek and Roman penchant for buggery. While I think that's a little overplayed, it's still valid to say that Romans might have given "hearty approval" to the act while within an earshot of Paul.

But murder, strife, deceit, arrogance, boastfulness? Untrustworthy behavior?

It's hard to imagine a functioning society where such vices aren't just tolerated but are applauded. Such a society couldn't be sustained for a year, let alone 400+. What is Paul referring to? A few bad eggs casting a bad impression on the whole bunch? Maybe. What I think is more likely is that Paul is criticising the lack of open condemnation, and legal action against these evil ones. Proto-western culture, while not wholely wicked did not necessarily move to attack immoral behavior in it's citizens. The status quo was not to attempt legal supression of moral nastiness, unless it reached an extent of interfering with civic business. Upstanding citizens might view liars and braggarts negatively, but there wasn't a mandate to chop their hands off either. Your average citizen certainly wouldn't say "YAY" to theft or murder (exception: criminals in the arena).

The traditions of the middle east, however, were just the opposite. Law was derived from a class of Priest-Kings who's sole interest was making God happy by punishing immorality, with little to no concept of rights or consenting adults yada yada.

This culture shock is still being carried on today. The middle eastern model of morality-based lawmaking has a modern representative, in those very same words from Paul, and those that use them as a guide for civil and private morality.

The mainstream media certainly doesn't condemn homosexuality. Likewise the media does indeed portray Paul's heirs as intolerant and cruel. However, the media does not give "hearty approval" to homosexual behavior. No. The media does not give the thumbs up to anal sex. It does not celebrate a penis going into a butt. Ditto to fellatio, rimjobs and scissoring.

Featuring homosexuals prominently, without criticising the behavior is not equivalent to approval. Failure to condemn is not approval. Failure to assert is not the same as denial. This is not nitpicking, it's an distinction that is essential to a functioning democracy. It is criticial to western civilization to be able to look at something and basically say "meh", without it being interpreted as support.

On 9/11

This is going to be short. The question is, does 9/11 matter anymore?

I'm not trying to be taboo for the sake of shock value, but the thought suddenly occurs. The #1 movie at the box office this past weekend was Contagion, a movie about a massive worldwide epidemic that reaches an apocalyptic level. So, Americans coped with the 10 year anniversary of what might have been the worst tragedy on American soil by seeing a movie about the worst tragedy on American soil? More importantly, studio bigwigs apparently calculated that no one would make the connection, or care enough to let that stop them from seeing the movie, with surety enough not to change the release date. And they were right.

I'm not saying that 9/11 isn't considered significant anymore. We're still feeling the affects in the way we conduct politics and in the two wars that are still ongoing. I'm just saying that I believe most people have moved on, emotionally, and this date has become just another anniversary to be acknowledged every year. Aside from a touching story I heard on NPR last week about Mychal Judge, a Franciscan friar who died at ground zero, this date has had no emotional impact for me. Besides the NPR thing, the only emotion I've felt is a slight irritation over the past weeks that I would soon be forced to recognize an arbitrary date and round number, and that current affairs will be suspended for this forced memorial. It's not that I don't care anymore, I do think of that day reflectively and with sobriety now and then, but the national remembrance has begun to feel forced and out of proportion.

Maybe I can only care so much for so long. It was a horrible thing, but it's been over for a while. The scale of this event was huge, but not unlimited. Even events as monumental as this cannot mean everything to everyone forever. Eventually we move on. It may take quite a long time, but all tragedies can eventually be sorted out and tucked away.

The Prize

We need a more tangible prize for our 2012 Primary wager, rather than some abstract notion like "glory" or "honor". Can you spread honor onto a kaiser roll? I think not. So, that in mind, I unveil the 2012 Republican Primary Race GRAND PRIZE:


The "Mustard of Glory"

This bottle of generic-brand mustard has sat on my desk since early February. I don't recommend you eat it directly, or as an accompaniment to food. However, it had only one previous owner: James Bond. Some folks say that the famous MI6 agent used this mustard on a turkey sandwich, which he consumed just prior to intercourse with a beautiful live girl. You might be wondering how I obtained a jar of mustard that was owned by a fictional spy, or why it's a relevant prize anyway. Well, I don't have an answer to that. However, my scientist, Dr. Cody, spends his days in a tin shed, deep inside a small canyon outside of San Bernadino...

There you have it folks, the die is cast. Pick a winner, acquire the mustard. Perhaps you too can enjoy intercourse with a beautiful live girl.

Against George Lucas

OK, this is a very old and very played out criticism, but I don't care. George Lucas is at it again.

Hey, remember this tub of crap?

When Lucas took what should have been the most badass moment of the whole series and turned it into some sort of bizarre parody of Frankenstein (sans irony) with a shot from the ceiling of Darth Vader saying "NOOOO!" that defies all reason and taste as an attempt at legitimate drama ("MENDOZAAAA!!!!!")?

Well, Lucas has now decided to ramp up his campaign of terror against his own fans by taking this campy moment and extending it into the original trilogy, with the upcoming bluray release of the whole series. Take a look.

I could scarcely believe this wasn't a hoax until Lucasfilm confirmed that this change, along with several others (such as replacing puppet Yoda with CGI yoda in Phantom Menace and giving Ewoks blinking, moving eyes in Jedi) will indeed be a part of the bluray release.

I could spend hours trying to describe the depths of depravity that I think compel George Lucas to constantly make creative changes to works long established and cherished in the public psyche. Suffice to say we're all aware that he is deranged. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that Lucas owns the films, and he's going to do whatever he wants with them. And there's nothing we can do about it.

I feel that Justice demands that those rights be stripped away from him, the original films be restored, and that he should suffer in some unimaginably painful way for his crimes against taste. However, we live in a society of laws where, unfortunately, Daddy Justice cannot always be served to the extent that he should.

I do have a modest suggestion, for how we can serve justice without violating property rights and inflicting arcane torture. It's quite simple, really. To quote Jay Sherman, "If you stop watching bad movies, they'll stop making bad movies". Make a vow to yourself that you will give no more of your hard earned dollars to fund George Lucas's madness and tyranny. Do not purchase any new products produced by Lucasfilms. Do not patronize any films produced or endorsed by Lucasfilms. Do not, for an instant, turn to a television station that is showing any of the Star Wars films. To do so is to give royalty money to Lucas by proxy, through ratings and advertising funds on the channel in question. Cut him off completely and utterly.

We have been lax these past decades. And Lucas has interpreted our laxity and lack of moral fiber as an endorsement of his actions. No more. Cut him off. If he ever gets the picture, and re releases the original versions of the films, give him a hearty "yes" vote by going out and purchasing at least one copy of each.

This is the best that we, the little people, can do. We don't have the power to "push a button" on a creative effort of which we disapprove. But we can refuse to play ball until we get what we want.

What say you, Calculon?

Jake?