Jesus Built My Hotrod

Jesus' pimp ride.

Near Dark and...Twilight?

Near Dark is one of my all-time favorite movies, a movie that files off all the sexy and drills down to the core of vampirism-as-addiction. The vampires are sadistic losers with a single driving influence in their lives and a committment to do whatever is necessary to get their fix and enjoy it while they get it.

So imagine my surprise when I read this. I realize the article is almost a year old but come on...what the hell is this guy smoking? Twilight? Really? Did he not actually watch the original? I suppose it's for the best, though. Remakes are rarely all they're cracked up to be, right? It'd probably just be a disappointment.

Maybe I'd better go pop it back in the player and make sure *I'm* not the crazy one.

The Bottom

Just when I thought Glenn Beck couldn't fall any farther into hyperbole...I find this gem: Thunderf00t on Beck.

Sticks and Stones

Beauty.

CNN had this up today. I hadn't noticed the verbiage used before, but Mr. Finley-Price is right, this has "Potential for Mis-Use" written all over it. As if our society isn't litiginous enough already.

Tao Space Preview

Okay, so a friend asked me if I'd posted anything I'd been working on lately and I had to admit that I haven't. I haven't edited or proofread anything and its likely to be a bit anemic in its imagery but just for him, here are the first few pages of one of my projects:


TAO SPACE - A KUNG FU SPACE OPERA

01 - CAPELLA

“You be back before dark! There are frogs on this planet!”

The ramp hydraulics had barely stopped hissing when Capella’s booted foot made contact with the damp tarmac. The shouts of her grandfather from inside the Emerald Crane were tinny, half-hearted, and fading fast.

Capella raised one hand in an affectionately dismissive wave without looking back, her other hand occupied with a tiny Geomancer that was running streams of data so quickly she could only be skimming it for the bullet points, “I’ll be fine, I’ll bring you some Silurian whiskey when I come back.”

She never saw the odd lopsided look that crossed her grandfather’s face peering from the top of the passenger ramp, instead being pushed at by the sheer volume of activity that surrounded her once she got past the spaceport gates. A warren of kiosks selling knockoff merchandise, food, and flesh wrapped her in its tentacled embrace and she found she couldn’t pay as much attention to the Geomancer as she wanted.

A massive Vang Drun bellowed nearly into her ear as she passed and almost made her drop her little Geomancer. The creature’s terrible breath told her she’d strayed far too close to the perpetually wet thing and she scooted away from it, almost running into a throng of people going the other direction in her haste. She muttered under her breath about the Vang Drun’s terrible Mandarin and looked for a way past the mounting crowds.

The sun dropped toward the horizon as she moved into the city proper and began to navigate its labyrinthine streets and alleys. Vendors called their wares at people who largely ignored them while the thick aroma of dinner carts drifted through the space between, luring people to sample their variety of confections. Birds roosted along lines stringing up multi-purpose lanterns. Fish eyed her from tanks pressed against shop windows as she passed by, eerily reminding her of a recent visit to the Jun Yi prison to visit her father.

She wandered the streets, checking her progress with the continually updating information on her Geomancer until dusk began to creep through the streets, blanketing an ever growing portion of the city in shadow. Neon lights began to flicker to life and wan streetlights buzzed quietly as they cast their diffuse illumination across derelict streets.

Capella stuck a cookie stick in her mouth and tried to configure the Geomancer to take a new signal when she saw what she wanted. It was prominently displaying an Oracle Bone character alongside Neo-Tang codified Mandarin telling her where to find it. She made a delighted sound as she bit off the cookie stick and broke into a trot.

She weaved through the crowd, oblivious to the looks she got from those she jostled, until she found herself looking at a small storefront. The window looking in was filled with charms, the preserved body parts of animals known to have mystical properties, carved ivory and jade figurines, and even a few bones and books. Over the door frame in large characters was the name of the shop, and down the sides were the Oracle Bone characters her Geomancer had picked up.

She pushed open the door and stepped into the shop, immediately brushed by the scents of incense and potpourri. She wandered through the narrow aisles and saw the man at the far end of the shop, as ancient as she’d suspected, but unnaturally stiff. She smiled at him and he grinned back humorlessly.

“I like your shop,” she said as she began to browse a shelf full of tortoise-shells.

“As do I,” he responded.

She looked up at his tone, but he looked away from her as she did. Only somewhat put off, she looked around for his books.

“Can I help you find anything?” he asked.

“As a matter of fact,” she said, happy at the prospect that she wouldn’t have to spend an hour sifting through unorganized piles, “I’m looking for one of Su Song’s treatises on horology. Something about a celestial globe and a…an army thing.”

“Ah,” the shopkeeper said as if he’d just discovered something amazing, “The Essentials of a New Methodology for Automating the Bindings of Minor Malevolents in Tao Space!”

“That’s the one!”

“Sorry. I don’t have that one.”

“Oh,” she said crestfallen.

“I do, however, have its rather more modern antecedent, Zhong Te’s Permutations and Variations Concerning the Movement of Celestial Bodies through Hellspace.”

“Oh!” That sounded good, even if she had no clue what that was, “That’s great, I’m a sorcerer-engineer and that sounds right up my alley. Does it have any passages on stabilization when passing through multiple portal junctures during a local spiritual eclipse?”

“Well,” the man said, “I suppose you’ll just have to take a look and find out for yourself. It’s two rows over, the book with the ivory latch on it.”

She nearly skipped her way to the area he described, wheeling carelessly around a corner and nearly bumping into a short, squat creature with huge eyes and a mouth as wide as its head. It wore a spacer’s jumpsuit and the ring for its helmet was absurdly huge. It’s wide flat tongue licked its lips as two nictating membranes flicked over it’s protruding black eyes. Yae Hai.

Capella didn’t have time to scream.

Plan B From Outer Space

One thing I've noticed as the father of a girl is how pathologically fearful most fathers appear with regard to their daughter's sexuality. They want to hide it, defend it, squelch it. They wrongly center themselves as the guardians of something that does not belong to them, something they can only guide passively if at all.

It seems obvious to many of us, but some people still cling to the belief that they can control their child's sexual behavior. We can influence it, certainly, and we are all encouraged to do so, but the facts are that our daughters are having sex whether we like it or not, and all we can do is make sure they're taken care of properly.

Recently, Plan B was approved for...well, you can read the link. Basically, 17-year olds can get it now.

This is a good thing. Why?

According to the Guttmacher Institute:

•Most young people have sex for the first time at about age 17, but do not marry until their middle or late 20s. This means that young adults are at risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.

•The proportion of teens who had ever had sex declined from 49% to 46% among females and from 55% to 46% among males between 1995 and 2002. [this is still around half]

•A sexually active teen who does not use contraceptives has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within a year.

•One in five teens whose parents do not know they obtain contraceptive services would continue to have sex but would either rely on withdrawal or not use any contraceptives if the law required that their parents be notified of their visit.

•Eighty-two percent of teen pregnancies are unplanned; they account for about one in five of all unintended pregnancies annually.

•Teen mothers are now more likely than in the past to complete high school or obtain a GED, but they are still less likely than women who delay childbearing to go on to college.

•The reasons teens give most frequently for having an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, inability to afford a baby now and feeling insufficiently mature to raise a child.

The points were cherry-picked to show that 1) our daughters are quite likely to have sex while still teenagers, 2) they are highly likely to become pregnant if not allowed access to some form of contraception, 3) if they are denied access they're likely to continue their activity unprotected, 4) teen mothers are, overall, less educated than their adult counterparts, and 5) they KNOW pregnancy at their age is a bad idea.

Even for those of us with good father-daughter relationships, our girls are not going to tell us everything. If it's hard for you to talk to her about sex, imagine how hard it is for her to do the same with you. Then imagine that she's gone and had sex despite all your carrying on about morality and responsibility and how likely does it become that she'll even consider asking you for help if she had unprotected sex or suspects she could be pregnant?

I'm going to guess that the chance is low.

The discrete availability of this pill to 17-year old girls won't help the STI front, but it may just save a few of them a lifetime of condemnation, lost opportunities, and unwanted children.

I Live!!

Sorta.

I'm not sure why I spend so much time between posts, I'm really not. But sometimes something happens that flips my switch in a way that affects me concretely rather than abstractly. That's what happened with this article:

Ars Technica on Pirates and the Music Industry

I don't have a lot more to say but: the BI Norwegian School of Management is right. No amount of denial on the part of the industry will change that.

I totally understand the need to protect copyright. As a person with the stated goal of producing marketable intellectual property and as a person married to someone producing marketable intellectual property, I don't want theft any more than anyone else. So where do I find the happy middle ground, where the music industry adopts a healthy and intelligent business model appropriate to the information age and where people share and propogate but don't steal?

I'm gonna have to think on that.

Authorspot - Neil Gaiman

In my ever-expanding quest to figure out who and what I am, what makes me tick, and from whence my psychoses derive, I've decided to share with you writers that I enjoy.

Perhaps best known for his work on the Sandman, Gaiman first struck a chord with me when I picked up Neverwhere on a lark. It was dark, fantastic, and quirky in all the right ways. I soon discovered Stardust which was similar, but far less dark. Still, I never imagined it as a film.

I even bought my youngest son his children's book, The Day I swapped my Dad for Two Goldfish.

But it was Coraline that really cemented him as a writer I'll always enjoy reading. It recaptured much of what drew me in with Neverwhere while also being a fantastic ghost story.

I love ghost stories and one of these days I'll have to recommend M.R. James.

At any rate if you haven't already, check out:



As with most authors of note, this is far from a definitive selection of recommendations, only what has spoken most directly to me, and taken from the list of what I've actually read. Have at it!

Eye of Newt

Every day I get more and more confirmation that the conservative bloc of this country was worth leaving behind. Intolerance, defamation, and the neoconservative notion of democracy through violence are all values I am increasingly surprised to see persisting.

For whatever reason, it still surprises me to see this sort of thing given any sort of validity at all.

Seriously, how can anyone say this...

"Are (Democrats) really prepared to close the government in order to stop drilling?", Gingrich asked, "Because I think the country will find that to be a suicidal strategy."

...with a straight face?

It isn't the Democrats shutting the government down, it's Newt and his buddies shutting it down via coercive tactics not far removed from extortion, all because they aren't getting the meaningless vote they want.

According to this, there are approximately 18 billion barrels of oil currently inaccessible and offshore. Estimates further state that production wouldn't likely begin until 2017 and peak production wouldn't be reached until 2030. That peak would be roughly 200,000 barrels per day on top of what we are already producing.

Less than a 10% increase. That wouldn't even begin to offset the price increases we've witnessed over the last year, but it's the focal point of far too many talking heads.

Newt is willing to shut the government down over a feel-good measure and he has the nerve to blame the Democrats for it. Cute.

Canned Laughter

Ah, more Spammy goodness. From the label of a can of Spam I opened the other day:

"So. Now you know another of the many secrets of SPAM(r). This knowledge carries much responsibility. It gives you the power to feed yourself and others. You wield a delicious skill that has far-reaching consequences. Plese do not use it for evil."

I love these guys.

My Left Nut...

So...there's a book out called The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. If you want a more reputable link, look here.

While it isn't new, I just saw it and after seeing such titles as Liberal Fascism gracing the shelves of late, I figured I had to at least poke into one of these books to see what's going on.

Dr. Lyle Rossiter's book conveniently has an official webpage devoted to it, and on it are several convenient excerpts.

I will be quoting liberally (uh oh) from the provided excerpts in an attempt to figure out how anyone with an M.D. can conclude that a difference of opinion can be classified as a mental illness.

The first segment is from the preface and it begins promisingly. It is generally well-written and lays out some of the author's generalized credentials and attempts to establish his authority. Good.

Then it goes on to this jewel: "Although I have made strenuous efforts to follow where reason leads, I have not written this book out of intellectual interest alone. My intent has been more “generative” than that, to use one of Erik Erikson’s terms. It has, in fact, grown out of a deep concern for the future of ordered liberty."

So he makes a nod toward objective reasoning while also telling us he threw it out in favor of an agenda. Now, having an agenda isn't problematic at all. I generally prefer to know the author's and he has conveniently informed us what his is. Problematic is when that agenda is little more than confirmation bias wrapped in scholarship.

Well, he goes on to discuss the madness of Liberalism in quite a bit of rather dogmatic language. Clearly generalizing what he calls the liberal mind, he makes absolutist claims about what a liberal thinker does and does not believe, painting in stark shades of black and white, a misrepresentative picture of a large, vibrant, and diverse group of people. It is absolutism at its worst.

But the best part of all is this little gem:

"Like a child molester, the liberal politician grooms his constituents until their natural cautions against yielding power in exchange for favors dissolves in reassurance."

This passage is pure gold.

In it, he has carefully crafted the sentence for maximum buy-in from his target audience and maxiumum outrage from the left. You see, while he deftly avoids actually calling liberal politicians child-molesters and instead draws a mere parallel in strategy, the comparison is included to plant that subliminal seed that liberal politicians are as evil as child molesters and in the best case scenario, the reader should perhaps believe that they are.

He successfully calls liberal politicians child-molesters without actually doing so.

I salute you, Doctor Rossiter, bravo! For an encore, perhaps he could do like Jonah Goldberg and invoke what amounts to Godwin's Law to further stir up hysteria.

FSM knows we don't have enough of that running amok these days.

Juno Reaction

Yes, that's a play on the band, referring to the movie. =P

So this movie is as they say, a runaway success. I went to see it with my wife the other day (saw Cloverfield the same day, yay!) and while it was even funnier than I expected, what surprised me was just how sophisticated and utterly non-judgmental the entire thing was.

Before we go on, there are spoilers in here.

Be warned.

Regardless, let me start with a reaction to the film. My wife teaches yoga and exercises with a friend down the street from where I live. They have an interesting friendship that allows them to be really irritated with each other regularly yet continue to be friends. That says a lot about its strength. So I wasn't surprised when she told me about a somewhat acrimonious exchange they had over the movie Juno, yet they still had a fine time together.

Her friend had a problem with Jason Bateman's character. He was a bad guy. She said he just needed to grow up and be the adult that his family needed. She even went so far as to assume that he somehow sabotaged his wife's earlier pregnancies. Where she found sympathy for Garner's character and her plight, she had only condemnation for Bateman's.

At first glance, it almost seems like she has a valid point. In the film he abandons his wife and nearly destroys her hopes of adopting a child all so he can go make music, the dream of probably every other teenager in America. Seems pretty straightforward in its implications, doesn't it?

But what she failed to understand are the things my wife tried to point out to her, to no avail. To paraphrase her position: No, he should have just grown up and dealt with what he'd been given no matter the cost. He should be what she wanted him to be, not what he wanted to be.

First, though, it's important to recognize a critical element of the film, one that seems overlooked by many. That element is its lack of judgment.

Juno is quite possibly the first teenage pregnancy film I've seen that can potentially appeal to anyone regardless of their politics. At no point does it dwell on implications of immorality, the gender divide, or responsibility. Certainly each is touched on but there is never any censure nor is there any promotion of politics, gender or otherwise.

The film is what it is, and it isn't trying to be a message about teenage pregnancy so much as it is...a love story.

You heard me, this movie is about our hearts. It's about how we see the world and interact with its absurdities and cope with situations that have gone beyond our control. It's about how we can love and hate all in the same breath, how we can go on and on and sometimes find out only too late that what we want isn't what we thought it was.

Jason Bateman plays a character who was once an aspiring rock musician but who has given up that dream for the family he felt he was supposed to have, for his wife. As a culture we overvalue emotional sacrifice, and their relationship shows us the damage it can do in the end.

He was relegated to a single room in the house, with no other trappings that spoke of him at all anywhere to be seen. His wife pushed his 'adolescent' hobby - even though that adolescent hobby helped pay their bills - out of sight. She was embarrassed by it.

That my wife's friend thinks all he needs to do is 'grow up' shows a fundamental lack of understanding. He wasn't being childish and he wasn't being selfish. On the contrary, for the first time in his life, he was being true to himself and in the process, being truthful to his wife. That life wasn't what he wanted and he knew that he wouldn't be happier with a child, that perhaps he might even be less happy.

His wife kept him tucked away and out of sight (sadly like I see happen all the time in the real world), refusing to acknowledge who and what he was, quite possibly what she'd initially fallen in love with.

Lest you think I am vilifying her, Jennifer Garner's character was terrified. She wanted desperately to be a mother, and all that aloof demeanor wasn't callousness or any real reflection of her internal character. On the contrary, it was a poignant depiction of her fear: afraid that she'd again be disappointed, afraid that she wouldn't and that she'd have to be a mother, she tried to armor herself against inevitable disappointment. Perhaps it was even a method of dealing with the increased emotional distance in her marriage.

That's the beauty of the film. It never criticizes, it never preaches, and it never flinches. People do the things people we know are doing. Beyond the quirky dialogue the movie feels real and unforced, it manages to tell its story without trying to wrangle tears and without aiming blame anywhere at all.

Sometimes the life we imagined isn't the life we get. I suppose 'sometimes' is a terrific understatement: no one I know has the life they thought they wanted. We all have the lives we stumbled into and we have to deal with them the best we can.

Some of us are undoubtedly happier than others, but I have to worry when people come away from the film having missed the point. I have to worry when a friend of my wife's can only see that people should shoehorn themselves into misery just to satisfy her idea of being grown up, an idea that amounts to little more than conforming to her wishes at the expense of their very soul.

We do this to each other, we tell each other that we should do what makes us happy, that we shouldn't worry about success or money and that we should find the calling that makes our hearts sing. But when people try to do just that, they become selfish, childish, or foolish. Suddenly, the quest to find ourselves must take a place behind the needs of those around us or we are vilified for being selfish children who need to grow up.

This film encourages us all to look past the surface to find our hearts and to find the hearts of those we care about. It encourages us to believe the best of each other. It never tries to paint a villain, only to show us that if we don't try to see each other and ourselves for what we are, it's easy to misunderstand what's happening in our lives.

Juno isn't really a teen pregnancy movie, it's a love story.

Sputtering Toward Life

Today, the UN voted in favor of a moratorium on the death penalty. Coming on the heels of New Jersey eliminating the death penalty for that state, the resolution predictably faced opposition from countries heavily invested in the process.

The United States is one of them. While not all states use capital punishment and not all that have it on the books exercise the option, the United States stands as one of the receding holdouts for the practice.

New Jersey gives me hope. That several more states are looking at a similar ban on the death penalty gives me further hope. If the pendulum swings far enough, maybe we can take that last step toward putting our proverbial money where our mouth is on the issue of basic human rights.

For my previous thoughts on the subject, look here.

War on Christmas...Break out the SAMs!

Welcome to America, where apparently you need to be a Christian because...we're a Christian nation, yo.

For your reading pleasure, House Resolution 847:

( Cited from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-847 )

Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.

Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;

Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;

Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;

Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;

Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;

Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and

Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

Ignoring for the moment that this is an unbelievable waste of legislative attention, and even that it is a largely meaningless gesture legally, why was this done and what is the underlying message?

The sponsor of the bill, Representative Steve King (R, IA), introduced this resolution after a similar one honoring Ramadan was introduced and indeed, it mimes the verbiage.

He refused to vote for or against religion resolutions that did not involve Christianity, but put his name on this and voted for a previous bill recognizing Christmas and honoring Christianity. He is on record as stating that America is a Christian nation and this seems to be another effort to legitimize his viewpoint.

Funny, I was under the impression that America was the world's melting pot, a place where people of all religions and cultures could come together to build prosperous and free lives. At least, I thought that's what it is supposed to aspire to. But King and many others appear to have other ideas.

Almost every year, I hear about the 'War' on Christmas, about how secular interests are trying to destroy Christmas and thereby undermine Christianity. Sunny Hundal has some interesting thoughts on that.

For me, suffice to say that every 'secularist' I know celebrates Christmas, a holiday that has become as cultural as religious. In point of fact, Christmas is celebrated in Japan, a largely Shinto nation, even if primarily as a buildup to New Year's. But perhaps King's problem is that Christ is not a pivotal part of this celebration.

Forgive me, but we've adopted religious holidays wholesale and converted them to non-religious celebrations, and indeed Christmas is the significant date for Mithra, the Unconquered Sun - and some others - not necessarily Christ.

It is hardly unusual for celebrations to change over time and adapt to shifts in culture and changes in society. Memorial Day here in the United States, ostensibly established to honor war dead, is a date when people visit the graves of any deceased relative and as often as not is merely an excuse for an early-season barbecue. Halloween, another holiday with its roots in religion, is now more cultural and just an excuse to have parties and socialize.

As a nation with a decidedly Christian majority, the point of this resolution is even stranger than its stated impetus. There is no institutional Christian persecution, at least not in the United States...the country to which this resolution primarily applies, as stated in it's text. There is no 'War on Christmas' or other great conspiracy to rob Christians of Christ in Christmas.

What this resolution does, however, is tie our lawmakers uncomfortably to a single over-arching religious tradition. It states unequivocally (with only 9 naysayers on the resolution) that our lawmakers are favorable to Christianity and its traditions. In and of itself, this isn't a problem. The problem is that once again our legislators are bringing religion uncomfortably close to government.

With Christianity and Christmas as popular as they are in this country, the resolution itself is pointless and little more than grandstanding. Ramadan and other traditions may be honored this way as a showing to others that we accept and welcome them. Such a move is hardly necessary for Christianity in a place where it is predominant and powerful.

It is, perhaps, a way to avoid making any laws relating to Christianity while also shouting out that those in support are religious, just like Joe Kentucky and Jane Texas. It walks in the uncomfortable clothing of a religious roll-call, a checklist. After all, King had rather inflammatory words for those that opposed him in the vote.

I believe King and his supporters did this to look good to their constituents. This is a bald-faced manipulation of power to secure a continuation of power by appealing in a way that is meaningless to those it honors and offensive to those it excludes, pointedly about one quarter of the United States.

I suppose that in the end it's really just much ado about nothing, as one man put it. There are raised voices and shaken fists and in the end a sorting of the ideology and opinion of our lawmakers. It drifts dangerously close to a litmus test not necessarily for office, but of reception for more legislation of the sort that actually can impact those excluded from the mindless back-slapping and congratulatory vapidity.

I wonder though, what those looking from the outside in are thinking when they watch what the lawmakers of the most dangerous (re: militarily powerful and aggressive) country on earth are doing as they work toward internal solidarity which then turns its face toward exclusion as it divides its battle lines into camps of 'us' and 'them.' The majority paints itself as under siege and in need of support, allies, and knowing who is for us and who is against us. It manufactures crises.

All told, another glowing example of American enlightenment, inclusion, and tolerance. It is sad when the politicians of such an advanced and powerful country have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of privilege as they respond to imagined demons...or do they? Maybe they really do understand what they're doing. That, perhaps, is the most profound implication of all.

Making Criminals of Customers

Teenagers frequently think the world is out to get them, that everyone hates them, that no one understands them. Most often, this is a reflection of some other issue related to identity and uncertainty. Rest assured however, that like a true paranoid, sometimes they're right.

The RIAA, in fact, does hate them...and the rest of us as well. In fact, they're busy making criminals of customers right now.

I have a huge music collection, and when the time came to digitize it, I did so eagerly. I wanted to store all those CDs I bought, the vinyl and casettes and put everything onto my computer. Later, my iPod became the vehicle of choice to hold the more than 8,000 songs I wanted at my fingertips to listen as my mood shifted. I was under the impression the golden age of music had finally arrived.

To do so, I ripped my CDs using an MP3 encoder. To this day I still don't use iTunes or Media Player or Jukebox or anything else. I have a ripper written by a wonderful Spaniard that takes every CD I buy and converts them for use on my digital players.

But now...I'm a thief?

According to Jennifer Pariser in the article linked above, making a digital copy of music you purchased for personal use is stealing. Stealing one copy but stealing nonetheless.

Like most people I've spoken with, I've been operating under the assumption that because I paid for an album I can then convert the songs to a digital format for my own use on a digital media player, be that my PC or an iPod or other such player. I was under the impression that I was supporting the labels, the artists, the production and distribution companies, the support staff and so on.

Apparently purchasing the CD isn't enough. If I want to have a digital copy I have to also buy the songs in digital form. What I don't understand is the disconnect here.

Leaving aside that if I go to purchasing music solely through digital means that anyone working in the art or manufacturing part of the industry is left out of the profit equation, this looks like a thinly veiled ploy to get me to buy my music twice if I want to enjoy modern music players.

So who's the real thief here?

As a matter of ethics and support, I have been purchasing my music and converting it to digital format, under the impression that what I was doing was acceptable. After all, it is my media. I recognize that the labels and artists retain rights to the IP but that isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is the method by which I enjoy what I've paid for.

It's none of their business what I listen to my music on because I've already paid for both the media (which I use for archival purposes) and the right to listen to the intellectual property contained thereon. This is not theft, this is fair use, regardless of how they want to define the term.

But the RIAA and its affiliates seem to want to treat their customers as hostile entities. Acting in good faith I am now, in their eyes, a thief. I am not a paying customer taking part in the time honored tradition of the exchange of value for value. Rather I am a predator preying on the poor exploited megacorporations that produce and distribute music. The act of making my music available to me, digitally, is taking food from the mouths of their children; violating their right to dictate the exchange exlusively in their favor; turning me into a slavering monster with no identifiable ethical framework as I devour the fruits of their labor by...using what I bought as is convenient for me.

I don't distribute music illegally and I buy the music I digitize. I am not an enemy of the RIAA and I am not a criminal...but that's the relationship they seem to want as they file John and Jane Doe suits with universities, label honest customers as thieves, and work studiously to avoid the 21st century and how it's changed the way we all do business.

Seriously, if they pursue this they will push people into piracy. If I can't use what I buy as I want, what's my motivation to give them what they want? If I'm a criminal either way, why shouldn't I save myself some money and aggravation and pirate my music? I've paid for the right/license to listen to my music. I refuse to allow anyone to dictate the way I enjoy my music.

The thing is, I want to be a good customer. I want to support the artists I listen to. I do not want to be told I'm a criminal simply because I don't use the product I buy exactly as the seller wishes. Threats are not the answer. If the RIAA insists on treating people as criminals, that's exactly what they will become. If the RIAA instead changes tack and decides to work WITH its customers in enabling freedom of format they may just find the market giving back to them.

So think about it, RIAA. You fear that we will take the path of least resistance and pirate our music rather than pay for it...and your solution is to make it difficult to digitize what we legally purchase by telling us you regard it as an illegal act. Where do you think that will end? I, for one, refuse to buy a song twice.

I think it's pretty obvious.

"So this is how liberty dies..."

It may have been uttered by a fictional character, but the words ring loudly and the impact of that moment bears tremendous similarity to the reality of the previous passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and now the Military Commissions Act.

A common catchphrase in the United States has revolved around the idea that if we do nothing, 'the Terrorists have already won.' Meant to reinforce Edmund Burke's comment that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," the phrase has taken on new and muddled life.

In standard parlance, it actually means that we cannot allow the terrorists to get away with anything, and that any and all sacrifices made to enable that are acceptable. Oddly, this is in direct contrast to another laudable historical thinker - Benjamin Franklin - who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.*"

America is experiencing an identity crisis directly tied to its leadership. For generations we have billed ourselves and believed ourselves to be the greatest bastion of liberty and justice in the world. Indeed, we prided ourselves on our tolerance, on our willingness to allow the guilty to go free in order that the innocent escape state injustice, on our position as the fulcrum on which the free world moved.

Certainly some of our previous wonder was hubris and myopia, and perhaps that is the root cause of our current problems, but the fact is that the United States is on a downward ethical slide and we can't find the brakes.

A smile crinkles his eyes every time Bush tries to say soberly, "I am doing this to protect the American people," and all the while he slowly strips away civil liberties and fundamental American freedoms in the name of security and safety. I talk to people daily who agree with not only his goals but his methods.

Perhaps the greatest irony is the comment Bush made, "We will answer brutal murder with patient justice."

This new Act strips rights from people previously protected by the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States has always implicitly protected all people coming into contact with the US legal system, polity or territory outside of military considerations. Now however, we eschew the previous American justice where people are innocent until proven guilty for something more strikingly Mosaic or Hammurabic. We will extract our justice (i.e. vengeance) in blood and oppression.

We can now skirt the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, and common decency such as it is, to torture - I mean, coerce - testimony from a prisoner. We deny them the right to challenge their detention legally. We have fundamentally changed American justice and what it stands for.

No more is America the Land of the Free or the Home of the Brave. We have become shackled cowards who fail to realize that the terrorists won when we changed our way of life and altered our legal system to become more like them.

I can only pray this measure comes before the Supreme Court to be struck down as unconstitutional.


* Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

This one time, at Jesus Camp...

Watch this. Jesus Camp.

Now, I have yet to see this film, so I'll deal more with some of the themes it touches on rather than comment on the film itself. But just the trailer there raises some interesting and important subjects.

Two things stand out in particular: "We pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag..." and the images of the children in camouflage, with painted faces, acting like warriors.

Having been involved (still am, on the surface) in a religious organization regarded by many as fundamentalist itself, I've seen this behavior and dogmatic reinforcement at work first hand. Christian churches of the fundamentalist sort enjoy seeing themselves as under siege morally, ethically, and culturally. It provides them ammunition of the sort enjoyed by martyrs, victims of genocide, and paints them a world of moral superiority for their reviled yet righteous ways. They view themselves unapologetically as the last bastion of righteousness in the world, beset on all sides by agents of the Devil bent on tearing down the Kingdom of God and dragging every last soul kicking and screaming into Hell.

Because the stakes are so high, they must bring their message of hope and salvation to the world or God will hold them accountable for doing nothing in the face of wickedness. In some cases, rejection of the message is accepted though not understood. In others, it is met with vitriol or violence. They cannot conceive of a paradigm where Christ could be rejected.

This mentality of "Us vs. the World" leads to some interesting evolutions of thought and practice. The construction of a monolithic and near unassailable enemy mandates not just the ally that is God, but unwavering loyalty and a separation from that which may corrupt. If it makes you uncomfortable or is not explicitly about Jesus Christ, it is of the Devil.

The problem comes, in large part, when the reality of the world crashes through the front door and these people realize that their comfort zones are defined in large part by homogeneity. Things that are different make them uncomfortable and sometimes include ideas that aren't necessarily at home with the Bible. Suddenly these things that were otherwise innocuous or that may have had the potential to educate and enlighten are evil. Evil they must be, but they are also enticing to the children.

The only way to protect the children, in their innocence and inability to discern the wiles of the Devil, is to indoctrinate them young. Surround them with Jesus, teach them about Jesus, tell them that those who do not believe in Jesus are going to Hell. Tell them at their very lives and souls are on the line, that it is a war and that they are its most vital and powerful soldiers, and tell them that those who oppose them are in league with the Devil. They are evil and if they cannot see the error of their ways, they will be as dry wheat before a raging firestorm.

The End is coming and if you are not with Jesus, you are against Him.

THIS is what frightens and disturbs the rest of us. In our own backyards, neighborhoods, boardrooms and coffee shops there are people who are so opposed to any lifestyle that eschews Jesus Christ that they are bringing up their children to believe they must be Warriors for God, that the only way to deal with the heretics and infidels is through conversion or violence...violence sanctioned by God.

This is about fundamentally remaking American society in the image of the Evangelical. They don't want to share the world with the rest of us. Like the old saying went: "Make the world England." So it is that the Evangelical Christian bloc moves to make the world Christian.

Everyone wants to be able to identify with other people, to see in them pieces of ourselves and know that they aren't that different from us. In and of itself, this is healthy and normal. We select, group, sort and judge in order to facilitate every aspect of our lives. But what happens when we decide that it isn't good enough to try to find like-mindedness amongst the selection and that we simply want to do away with all choices but one? What happens when we value everything different as 'bad?'

We can all look at ideologies opposed to our own and see where they fail in their own doctrine, but it is far more difficult to look at ourselves. Just as this camp continually claims persecution for its ideas, it wants nothing more than to persecute others for theirs. The America they wish to build has no room in it for the rest of us, and in time they would find that it would selectively exclude some of the prior faithful as well, until true homogeneity had been achieved or the entire structure collapsed in on itself.

Perhaps someday their children will begin to think and question in spite of their indoctrination to do no such thing, and perhaps it is in those children that America will find it's true saviors.

Mormon Women

I haven't posted for a while. I blame school. I've been going for a very long time and I was finishing up some classes that gave me fits. Anyway, that's over and hopefully now I can vent my spleen with the best of them.

I decided recently to begin cataloguing my issues with my childhood religion and began with an issue that bothers me significantly: Cain and Abel. I acknowledge that my issues with this tale are rather pedestrian and unsophisticated, but it seemed as good a place as any, since tackling Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design is being handled in such wonderful overabundance these days. In the course of it I was distracted by tales of Lilith.

Tales of Lilith, Adam and Eve (there were two?!) turned to discussions on obedience which turned to my recent discovery of New Order Mormon, Zarahemla City Limits, and other sites. While I could easily become distracted again with the overwhelming amount of information and topics that spill out of this line of inquiry, these sites in conjunction with my reading about obedience in the church reminded me of a General Conference talk given a few years ago that appalled me and that caused my wife and I to mock it rather relentlessly.

A Woman of Faith is a shocking opus to the role women play in the LDS church and the degree of indoctrination that permeates the fabric of the religion concerning the expectations of women. I don't believe the link contains the entirety of the talk, as I remember it being longer, but there are no notations that it was abridged, so I'll assume it is complete.

In this admonition to set aside all aspirations of independence, free-will, and equality, we see illustrated the utter contempt some Mormon women have for themselves. I won't break it down point by point, but let you read it and decide for yourself what you take from each bullet point and her illustration of what a Woman of Faith ought to be. What I will do is describe what my wife and I took from the talk.

In it, the speaker describes a woman who is able to put herself after God, after her husband, after her children, and after her social obligations. She trusts God, the prophet, her husband's counsel. In more than one spot, a Woman of Faith is described through her relation to and trust in, the male participants in her life. In almost no written exemplar of masculinity is a man defined by his relation to a woman of any sort. Here, a woman is defined almost solely by her male-prescribed role.

But more than that, more than her utter reliance on the Lord to give her life meaning and more than her life revolving around the utter selfishness of total self-sacrifice is the general message (in spite of several comments to the contrary) that a Woman of Faith is perfect. She does all the right things, prays at the right time and for the right reasons, never loses faith, never makes waves, and glories in her servitude. She is the unattainable, the unfathomable, the unbelievable.

A Woman of Faith is an ideal that makes the fallible women the talk is targeted at feel an overwhelming sense of guilt when they comprehend they are not that woman. No one can be, yet to be a Woman of Faith the highest ideals of the religion must be realized. Self is relegated to a position of unimportance or at least delay as service consumes all. A Woman of Faith is unrealistic, yet set as the standard rather than the ideal.

I'm certain the speaker didn't intend that message. I'm certain she felt that the image she presented was one of the ideal to aspire to, yet the presentation was such that I wasn't the only one to come away from it utterly aghast. My wife only owned up to feeling the same way after an offhand comment I made about Women of Faith being perfect. Perfectly stupid.

As a standard, a Woman of Faith fails. She represents an idealized and pedestal-bound painting, perfect in its execution and humble in its artistry. She never steps outside her authorized territory - never threatens the status quo. She is happy to take patriarchal orders and exercise the little power she has through the moral authority she is automatically granted by virtue of her sex, deserving or not.

In all, a Woman of Faith is complicit in the subjugation of women in the church. By subordinating her will to that of the male authority in the organization, she not only allows control, but glorifies her secondary position to the extent that to oppose it is to oppose virtue and goodness. From within the context of the faithful, the idea is nearly unassailable.

Anyway, I've ranted enough for now. Suffice to say that we use the term Woman of Faith as a humorous derogatory in my house. It's for the Super Soccer Moms, the women that don't exist or that are not-so-secretly dysfunctional and unable or unwilling to cry out for help. Whenever my wife says she's having stress or trouble dealing with the issues in her life, I tell her, "Honey, if you were only a Woman of Faith, you'd have no problems you know." It usually gets a laugh.

Flaming Lips

So the day after posting that last bit about the flag-burning, I heard an interview with Orrin Hatch, sponsor of the bill.

There are two things that illuminate this issue more than any other. I'm going to have to paraphrase.

The first thing he said that seemed completely nonsensical was that no one could possibly be against anti-flag-burning measures. If I remember the comments correctly, he said of the bill, "Who could be against that?"

I can only assume he's willfully ignoring the fact that since it has yet to pass the Senate, people obviously have their reasons. I outlined several of mine previously, but let's again not forget the First Amendment and that people may wish to express themselves differently than he does.

The second thing he said was far more illuminating: Hatch said he felt the Supreme Court was thumbing its nose at Congress and the will of the people and that they had no business in the crafting of law.

I am boggled.

The whole point of the Supreme Court on a macro level is to provide a counter to the power of the President and Congress. Certainly the Court doesn't actually draft law, but they are fully within their purview to denounce, validate or otherwise pass judgment on laws that come into question before them. Their job is to interpret law and even to reject law if it is found to be incompatible with the ideals of our civil justice system.

But I'm sure he actually knows this and is seeking to appeal to the stupid or the uneducated.

Ultimately, I came away with a realization that this has nothing to do with the will of the people, this is internecine squabbling of the calibre my pre-teen children engage in. This is about bullying and hurt feelings and other things that should have no place in government (yet sadly do).

Grow up, Hatch.

Burn, Baby! Burn!

Once more, Congress has decided to spend their time trying to pass an amendment to ban flag-burning, or in point of fact, desecration of any sort.

I'll let that sink in.

The key word here is Amendment. The Constitution of the country is the foundation of its legal and political frameworks. As such it provides a baseline for law, national ethics and values. Coupled with the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), the document defines how the United States approaches law through the implementation of community standard (majority rule) and its coupling with protection for the rights of minority groups. Since its inception, amendments have been made with the intention of being so sweeping they represented the will of the nation to a degree that should be unassailable by special interests.

It hasn't been all shining moments and progressive lawmaking (see the amendments on prohibition for our case in point), but that only drives my irritation home further.

The 11th Amendment restricted Judiciary power. The 12th established the Electoral College.

The 13th and 14th Amendment freed the slaves and guaranteed them rights and citizenship and the 15th Amendment circumvented popular interpretation of some wording in the Constitution to ensure them the vote.

The 16th Amendment clarified income taxation. The 17th removed the appointment of Senators and made them subject to popular vote. The 18th and 21st Amendments are the aforementioned Prohibition Amendments and we'd all do well to forget that travesty of lawmaking. The 19th Amendment did for women what the 15th was supposed to do for the ex-slave population. The 20th limits the damage an outgoing President and other lawmakers can do. The 22nd Amendment limits Presidential terms. The 23rd Amendment gave D.C. residents the ability to vote, which they had not had previously. The 24th Amendment removed the polling tax, allowing more access to the vote. The 25th Amendment clarified succession to the Presidency. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting aget to 18. Finally, the 27th Amendment modified the way Congress votes itself raises.

At least 9 of the post Bill of Rights Amendments deal directly or indirectly with voting. Others with distribution of power, taxation, and corruption. These are all vital and important issues dealing with some of the fundamentals that affect the functioning of the republic.

Yet...Congress now wants to rehash ground not dissimilar to that traversed by the 18th through the imposition of a law desired by a select group of special interests that trample freedoms established through previous articles, namely the first.

The proposed 28th Amendment reads: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

First, like so many items championed by the great United States Congress, the verbiage here is profoundly vague. This is, no doubt, intentional. Just as the open nature of the 1st Amendment allows a broad reading for its interpretation, this proposed amendment will be similarly sweeping if it ever passes.

The definition of desecration includes disrespect and as such, limits freedom of speech in ways no other censor has managed. Granted, the verbiage utilizes the word physical which limits its scope somewhat, however, the generalized nature of the declaration allows for punitive action through legislation and judicial challenge.

Here's the real thrust of my objection, though:

The flag is...well, a flag. It's cloth. It is certainly symbolic of the United States and of the values and ethics it espouses, but in the end, it is just a tapestry of iconography. It is not mystically powerful nor is it a housing for the soul of the nation. It is, and only is, a standard to be waved over national assets and holdings.

I don't think those that wish to obstruct the mistreatment of the flag realize that they are empowering those they're trying so hard to neuter. By imparting inflated relevance to Old Glory, they inadvertently supply their detractors with significant power. If it is as important as they say, then those who burn it accomplish more than protest, they achieve an emotional and ideological victory through their public destruction, indeed their public desecration, of the flag. By supplying them with the means to inflict ideological trauma, they will use it.

Contrast this: by never legislating a change to the ability to destroy the flag in protest, lawmakers and U.S. citizens retain the ability to snort in derision or indifference and move on with their lives, removing a significant portion of the ideological power breaking the law would have in a situation like this. Unlegislated, the imagery of foreign nationals burning the flag is incendiary (no pun intended) but not aggressive. Aggression manifests when such protests breach legal boundaries other than those governing open fires within city limits.

Ultimately, this movement is a waste of time, energy and focus. Legislators need to concentrate on vital and important issues like our eroding freedoms under the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act or our civil and human rights record in relation to Guantanamo Bay or our farce of an educational system.