Gamera! Gamera!
Gamera is really neat!
Gamera is filled with meat!
We've been eating Gamera!
Shells! Teeth! Eyes! Flames! Claws! Breath! Scales! FUN!
Gamera is super sweet!
He is filled with turtle meat!
We believe in Gamera!
Friday, September 30, 2011
On Gamera
As it stands, blogspot will not allow me to post a comment on my own blog because: "'goog' is undefined". If I had access to source, I could use my super programming powers to fix. However, I don't, so I can't. Rather than attempt to resolve political problems and reach sublime levels of ivory-tower enlightenment, enjoy this:
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
On Christian Victimology
John recently quoted a statistic regarding opinions on same sex unions, which stated that those in favor accounted for 52%, those opposed, 48%. This statistic is important, not just because those in favor represent a majority, but because this figure is so close to 50/50. It might be true that the equal strength of these two opposite opinions might account for the heated rhetoric when it comes to subject. Something to ponder.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
Now, the trend over time is toward toleration of homosexuality and gay unions. That's not just practical or political, but philosophical too. People are feeling more and more that there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, and that it's not harmful to society to allow gays to settle down. Conversely, some are feeling more and more that there's something wrong with those who do not accept homosexuality. It seems logical at this point to assume the trend is going to continue in that direction.
There's a fine line between acceptance and tolerance, and I do believe that there's plenty of room for religious dissent and freedom of opinion, but that's something of a side point. Mainly, I'd like to answer to the opinion of some Christians that they are being victimized because of their beliefs.
In as much as a man can criticize any person or idea in this country, he himself is not free from criticism. It is not a question of which opinion has merit. It is not a question of whether homosexuality is actually wrong. It is not a question of whether it's fair to call Catholics or Southern Baptists bigots simply for their code of morality. Right or wrong, in this country we are free to believe any ridiculous, stupid, even hateful thing that we wish.
The media is within their rights to act on bias by giving liberal or conservative voices disproportionate focus. An individual is within his rights to protest... anything. Our society as a whole is within its rights to turn their opinion against one group or another. It may feel horrible to be a minority which is unfairly hounded, but too bad.
I am not oppressed when Wanda Sykes appears on my TV to tell me to "knock it off" when it comes to using "gay" as a coloquialism to mean "dumb"; although I am annoyed by it. When one party says, "You aren't allowed to do this", "You aren't allowed to think this", and their words have the weight of law and civil authority behind them - that is a question of oppression. That is legitimately a a matter of victimization.
Make no mistake, there is nothing necessarily wrong with authorities making victims of people. It is, by design, one intended purpose of society. We victimize those convicted of crimes by placing them in prison, or executing them. We victimize the rich by forcing them to pay a higher marginal tax rate (which they, in turn, avoid with loophole, but nonetheless...). Whenever the force of law is executed, a victim is created.
The question is, is the benefit to society as a whole (the greater good) worth the collateral damage? If it's a question of outlawing anti-gay speech, I would say that it is certainly not worth the damage to individual rights. Luckily, I know of no such bill currently under consideration. Why did I just waste my time illustrating such an outlandish notion? I'm not sure. Where was I going with this again? Oh yeah: Stay outta my booze.
No! OK, back on track. A more feasible possibility is a business owner being sued for denying service to a homosexual. Which has a greater value (the greater good) to our society, preventing victimization of the store owner, or store patron? I think the homosexual patron would have the stronger case, but I guess it's open for debate. My point is this: this case, and others like it, are not simply a matter of Christians being run roughshod over because of their beliefs. There is not one victim here, but two. Not one aggressor, but two. Two competing worldviews are duking it out in field of public opinion. This is one battle in a greater culture war. Lawmakers do their best to balance the interests of various parties to find a balance (the greater good - SHUT IT) that serves the public interest. In the past, they might have been more inclined to side with a shopkeep against a minority that people don't care for, or are indifferent to. Now, it's more likely to side with a minority who wants a sandwich from the shop that everyone else is eating at.
Does that mean Christianity is being oppressed? No, I don't think so. I don't think that's a fair characterization. We are not forcing any particular church to perform a gay ceremony. We are not forcing churches to change their theology. And we're certainly not forming an Outback Nazi Law Enforcement Agency to hunt down and exterminate the intolerant. Nor are there any plans to do so. So yeah, I think such characterizations are overblown, and dishonest.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Primary Update
There is some buzz over Governor Christie possibly entering the race. I'm thinking if someone new (Christie or otherwise) officially announces candidacy, I'll open the books so folks can adjust their bets. You can make any change you want. A new candidate potentially changes the whole dynamic, so it only seems fair. The books will stay open for 7 days, so take your time.
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Also, if all things stay equal, John and I will tie if Romney wins nomination. How about a tiebreaker? Maybe on running mate? Or number of states carried in the general election? I'm open to suggestions, whaddayathink?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Against the GOP
I've attempted many times to write something about the state of the Republican party, and the current conservative movement. Something in the nature of the nuts taking over the nuthouse, religious fringe hijacking the party, or angry dumb mobs (read: Tea Party) shouting down what little is left of reasonable discourse in politics.
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
I simply can't find the words. I'm too emotionally involved in this. I'm too outraged and upset to be playful with words. It's probably true that this will come and go. Like all events that seem too great to get over, too apocalyptic, it will eventually pass. I can accept that likelyhood.
However, it's not just that it's a bad thing for the country. It's not just that it's bad for governance during a recession. It's not just - incorrect or imprudent. It's vile. Truly vile. What these people are is simply repulsive. Everytime I think about casting my thoughts into words on the subject, I can only shake in impotent rage over these wretches. These subhumans. These pathetic excuses for human beings that make up the conservative "base", that apparently has the ear of leadership.
Here's a clip from the last debate, where viewers booed a gay service member who submitted a video question to Rick Santorum.
You don't boo a service member. Period. At least not if you're a person who claims to "support the troops".
Santorum proceeds to answer the question by lying and saying that the repeal of DADT is an endorsement of homosexual misbehavior on duty. The lies are stacking up so fast among these people that it's impossible to stay above it. It's a triumph of untruth. The lesson being learned is that if you tell as many audacious lies as possible, and never apologize, you can create an alternate reality for at least a quarter of the population. And you'll make an additional 50% of the population at least give pause to seriously consider your lies.
If I could I would punish these people. Obviously I can't do that. What I can do is refuse to give this group, or anyone who chooses to associate under the same banner (Romney and Huntsman included), the time of day. I want them out of politics. I want them off of TV. I frankly want them out of my country, but I'd settle for being exiled from decent society...
KNOW HATE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)