Understanding Chronology

Gavin M. over at Sadly, No! is a champ with the "Shorter..." motif, and gives us his take on Marsha West's screed against John Edward. I am terrible at making anything shorter, but I don't really see a need to go into too much detail about this batshit piece of muddled paranoia. There's just one part of it that reminds me of an issue I often have with Christians who continue to use biblical passages to rail against witchcraft, and I feel compelled to share.

For the record, I believe pretty firmly that John Edward is full of crap. He's a great showman, which is fine so far as it goes, but his brand of terribly sincere world-wisdom reads to me more as charlatan than seer. This, however, does not cause me to agree in the least with Marsha, who gives the following lesson on why John Edwards is obviously in league with Satan.

"When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead" (Deuteronomy 18:9-11).

Could God be any clearer than that?

The Greek term used for contacting the dead is "necromancy." According to Wikipedia.com, "Necromancy is a form of divination in which the practitioner seeks to summon 'operative spirits' or 'spirits of divination,' for multiple reasons, from spiritual protection to wisdom. ... [S]ince the Renaissance, necromancy has come to be associated more broadly with black magic and demon-summoning in general, sometimes losing its earlier, more specialized meaning."

Now for the definition of witchcraft: "Witchcraft (from Old English wiccecræft "sorcery, necromancy"), in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers."

Now, I would bet that Marsha is one of those ignorant fundamentalists who believes that her chosen translation of the Bible is the actual Word of God™, superior to all other translations, including the ones it was translated from. I can't do anything with that. That's the kind of conversation-ending stupidity that fundamentalists always run to, driving rational Christians like myself crazy. But whatever. Marsha has probably already been informed that English translations of the Bible were targeted to turn people against regional pagan religions in the drive to convert England completely to Christianity, and that different translations of Hebrew words create profound differences between biblical interpretations. She can't hear that. Okay. But surely she can understand a simple timeline.

Deuteronomy was not written in Greek or in Old English. Etymology does not apply, since these are not examples of language slowly changing over time but being translated from one established language to another. No matter how many links you can conjure up between the meaning of the modern word "witch" and Hebrew words like "m'khashepah", the simple fact remains that the Celtic pagan earth worship of Europe, which is what the word "witchcraft" commonly refers to, did not exist at the time Deuteronomy was written. The concept that the Old Testament references celtic paganism, or eastern mysticism for that matter, is about as believable as the concept of Jesus the carpenter giving lessons on using a table saw. Regardless of how you feel about translation, it's just not plausible based on simple chronology.

I'm always amazed that, when questioned, these people can't adequately explain why celtic pagan rituals count as witchcraft, but similar rituals of Shintoism, Hinduism, Native American religion, Kabbalah and even Christianity do not. You'd think this is something you'd have to ponder before damning the followers of a belief system.

Frankly, it's astounding how many people believe that the bible literally condemns any actual or believed communication with the dead, and yet pray to Jesus on a daily basis.

Conservative Simplification

I became aware of this article by Adam Wolfson because my wife knew him while she was in college. She thought I might be interested to see what he had written a few years back for the National Review, and she was right. It's actually a pretty interesting article, and at least gives a much-needed break to the old stand-by criticisms of liberal motivations, like hating America and wanting the terrorists to win. That doesn't mean it isn't deeply, deeply flawed. It is, and as usual for conservative analysis of liberals, is a gross simplification of liberal philosophy.

These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood — something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief — and for this he is not easily forgiven.

There's some truth to this. I'm certainly not ashamed to say that I think there are a lot of shades of grey between black and white. Anyone with any sense of empathy should be able to understand that humans are very seldom motivated by classic cartoon villainy, complete with black cape and drooping mustache. We all do things that we know we shouldn't. How often are you motivated to do so by a driving desire to be evil? Did you drive to work today at fifteen miles over the speed limit to further an agenda of evil? Did you engage in neighborhood gossip to further an agenda of evil? Did you steal a newspaper, cheat on your spouse, underpay an employee or omit undocumented income from your tax returns because you are a person driven by evil? It's unlikely, even though all those actions are, to some degree, evil. Why is it such a crazy, moonbat liberal idea that humans can do evil without being evil, when we each exemplify that type of human fallibility on a daily basis?

But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers," and speaks of an "axis of evil." He affirms the need for the "violent restraint of violent men," and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay "a chaotic world ruled by force." He describes life under Hussein's rule in Iraq as a "Baathist hell." We live, the president warns, in "a time of danger."

My wife assures me that Mr. Wolfson is a pretty intelligent guy. He very well may be, but it smacks of smarmy, self-righteous ignorance to so openly and warmly embrace this kind of irresponsible rhetoric. Using broad strokes to misrepresent situations teeming with nuance isn't the calling card of a brave leader; instead, it's the embarrassing tactic of a weak politician pandering to an anti-intellectual and increasingly xenophobic base.

It's not that liberals can't deal with evil. I agree that we may view evil in different terms, but I don't believe that we can't parse it and actively ignore it. We're just not willing to let the evils of others justify evil as a response. Are the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers"? Absolutely. Does that justify hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilian deaths as part of the response to their actions? Was Iraq under Saddam a "Baathist hell"? For some, I'm sure it was. Does that justify an occupation that has destroyed huge swaths of that nation while funneling its money into the pockets of American corporations? These are the questions that conservatives have to ignore, because the answers are so glaringly obvious, and yet their supportive philosophy is based on leaps of logic that fly counter to those answers. Only the most callous and desensitized conservative could actually claim that killing a house full of children with a missile in an attempt to kill one terrorist operative based on faulty and uncertain intelligence is justified. But by employing words like "evildoers", "violent men", and "Baathist hell", they manage to keep things in black and white, as if seeing it that way made it so.

This kind of thinking isn't only wrong. It's dangerous. It leads to leaps of logic that jeopardize our ability to accurately assess and respond to events. In the conservative worldview, it's easy to assume Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were working together. They were both evil men, so surely they would work together, just like the Joker and the Penguin, or Lex Luthor and General Zod. That they weren't fictional characters is irrelevant, since the conservative concept of evil men is very much the same as comic book villains. Sure, we went to war to a large extent based on that fictional alliance, but that's okay. Evildoers. Killers. Violent Men. You understand, we had no choice.

That's certainly not the only example. They're incredibly frequent. Let's not forget that Dick Cheney assured us that it was "reasonable to believe" that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were perpetrated by Al Queda. And now, of course, we keep hearing that the government of Iran is aiding Al Queda, and that you don't need actual evidence, because it should just be obvious. C'mon. Evil helps evil. When can we start bombing?

I realize this article is a few years old now, but it still seems very relevant; maybe even moreso than when it was written. The entire McCain campaign seems to be based on this same sort of thinking. Liberals are to wishy-washy to trust. We need a "straight talker". Somebody who can get the job done. Somebody who won't ask pesky questions about global responsibility and social justice. Someone who knows how to handle an evildoer. Because there are countries to be bombed, civilians to be killed, nationalism to be stoked, blood money to be made and resources to be stolen. We can't be bothered with morality.

Nap Time

Amy's worried about jinxing the election. She should stop worrying, because I've been at it for over a month now. If I was superstitious about anything except my socks*, I'd be afraid of being so openly cynical about how things are going to turn out. But frankly, I think the worst thing would be for progressives, liberals, and rational moderates to believe that we've got this thing in the bag. We definitely do not, and resting on our laurels now will just mean we have to endure watching McCain's inauguration with laurel-shaped welts in our asses.

The press is all over trying to make Obama look shaky, and has no problem running Clinton hit-pieces in the guise of stunningly poor journalism. McCain is getting none of this. None of it. The guy who doesn't know the difference between Iran and Al Queda is getting a pass from the media, because he's not in a real race right now and isn't very interesting.

And Amy's right about Obama's speech too. It was stunningly moving; without a doubt, one of the best examples of true modern-day statesmanship I've heard in a long time. Does it matter? Not at all. Nobody wants statesmanship. They want Hillary upstairs while Bill gets a blowjob. They want Obama's uppity pastor who don't know his place. They want governors with hookers, or maybe admitting to threesomes. Real statesmanship, well, that shit's boring.

We are screwed.

*I never wear matching socks. This message brought to you by Americans Dedicated to Exposing Useless Information About Me.

Bush Lost His +2 Sword of Vocabulary Slaying

From Georgie's stirring speech marking the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the mess he got us into in Iraq:

"No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

Treasure? Lives and treasure? I realize the man lives in a fantasy world, but I didn't realize he thought he was playing some sort of global-scale game of Dungeons and Dragons. Doesn't he have a staff to proofread this shit?

"Uh, yeah, Mr. President? We might not want to refer to the money spent in Iraq as 'mad lootz'."

"Oh, really? Well, howzabout 'pirate booty.' I like pirates."

"Hmmmm... I don't think that conveys quite the message we're looking for..."

"Yeah, yeah... okay, I'll call it treasure. Ya' know, like plunder. Cause we went in there and blew up all them evildoers and plundered their treasure. It's heroical and stuff."

"I don't kn... Yeah. Okay. Whatever. That sounds fine, Mr. President."

Fucking treasure.

Aw Hell...

Not that it's a shocker at this point, but for the first time, McCain is running even with both Clinton and Obama in national polls. This should surprise absolutely nobody. While Clinton and Obama do everything in their power to ensure that the other is unelectable, McCain gets to make photo-op trips to Iraq, looking oh-so-presidential and carefree. The media loves him, and the Democrats are too busy infighting to do anything about him.

The Democrats are blowing this election. It has been handed to them on a gilded platter, and they're blowing it. Go ahead and read the comments section under just about any CNN Ticker post about either Democratic candidate. I hate to base anything on web commenting, but I think it's relevant that there are very, very few Republicans taking part in the argument. It's just line after line of Obama supporters calling Clinton a liar, or Clinton supporters calling the Obama campaign a cult. A frequently expressed sentiment goes along the lines of "If [Clinton/Obama] is the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for McCain." Really? Then you're an idiot. But since you're already doing the work of his campaign staff, why not toss him your vote too?

From Syracuse, With Anti-Intellectualism

Aw, hell, it's a slow morning. Let's make it a twofer.

To the Editor:

I was very concerned to see on the editorial page in your Sunday paper that a high school student who aspires to be a young journalist was so closed-minded. Mr. Cal Thomas did not accuse schools of teaching students to be "gay."

The schools do teach theories that cannot be proven, one of which is evolution; and apparently (from the letter cited) another is that people are born "gay." Both of these are theories that are not provable.

Mr. Cal Thomas and many others believe that the "gay" lifestyle is not acceptable. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side.

I am sorry that our young adults do not research the things that they encounter before they are willing to "spike" the opinions of those that they do not agree with. Dani, to be a good journalist, you will need to look at "both sides of the story." This is the reason many taxpayers are upset with the public schools. We feel our tax dollars are being wasted on a low-standard education for our upcoming leaders.

William Bellows

There's nothing better than an ignorant anti-intellectual lecturing a budding young mind about the dangers of accepting scientific data. With a little research, Dani Walters should be able to understand the other side. With a little more research, Dani Walters should be able to point out that the other side is deluding itself with propagandized fiction.

One of the most prevalent symptoms of anti-intellectualism and unreason in America is the constant misuse of the term theory. If one does not understand the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory, one should not construct an argument around it. Certainly you shouldn't expect journalists, or even young students of journalism, to take you seriously.

Oh, and of course, I'm certain that Mr. Bellows has a valid point about the state of our educational system. If only we followed the lead of the rest of the world, which has collectively abandoned scientific psychology and evolutionary theory in favor of religious dogma and pseudoscientific nonsense.

From Syracuse, With Stupidity

Checking in on the ol' hometown paper, I turn to the opinion section to see if there are any choice letters to the editor. Am I disappointed?

I am not.

To the Editor:
The director of the FBI said there was an abuse of national security letters. I'd rather have abuse of these letters and keep the country safe, rather than have a terrorist slip under the radar.
I'm not advocating surrendering our civil liberties, but I won't be upset if the FBI goes a little overboard, even if they check on me.
Ronnie Kelley

Ronnie's not advocating surrendering our civil liberties. He's just advocating allowing the FBI to ignore them! C'mon people! Like Patrick Henry was so fond of saying, "Give me liberty, unless of course I might get hurt, in which case give me an autocratic police state!"

Deuling Headlines

3 days ago:
Bush Vetoes Bill Banning Waterboarding

Today:
U.S. Report: China Abusing Human Rights

See, this is why America has no global credibility. I'm not going to claim that the United States violates human rights on a level comparable to China. That's ridiculous. But the U.S. admonishing China for human rights violations 3 days after our president vetoed an anti-torture bill is like Jeffery Dahmer chastising John Wayne Gacy for being a vicious murderer. Dahmer killed 17 victims, Gacy killed 33. That doesn't give Dahmer any kind of moral authority. They're both evil assholes. Kill count is irrelevant. And as long as we tolerate a government that tortures, we're permitting evil too.

Spitzer

Don't try to defend him or his actions. Seriously. And don't tell me it's not important, either.

It's unfortunate that this happened to a high-profile Democrat right now, especially one with even indirect ties to a possible Presidential candidate. That does not mean I want to hear about how this shouldn't matter. It matters.

If you cheat on your spouse with a prostitute, you're an asshole. Personal opinion there, but I stand by it. If you cheat on your spouse with a prostitute, knowing that if you get caught your wife will be humiliated on national television in front of reporters and your children's friends will find out about it on CNN before your child has even had a chance to parse the situation, you are an utter douchebag and you should resign. If you're willing to risk public humiliation of your own fucking family for a quick lay, I don't want you in charge of anything.

I realize politicians are human beings. I realize they're not perfect. But if you're too stupid to realize you maybe shouldn't order a hooker from a website while holding an office of national scrutiny, I don't have an ounce of sympathy. For four years, you make do with a Hustler and a bottle of hand lotion. If you can't manage that, you can't manage my state.

That's Not Okay

I pointed to this video in the previous post, but I have to comment on it a bit further.



The bubble Friedman is talking about here is a fantasy. I was a staunch Republican back then, and nobody thought this way. Nobody. It's completely revisionist history. Nobody ever said terrorism was okay. It never happened. There was never even a moment during the 90's when American culture said terrorism was anything other than heinous. Even Bill Clinton was blowing up aspirin factories to appease Americans who feared and hated terrorism, even if they had no real concept at the time of where the terrorism really was.

What Friedman is mistaking for a bubble of terrorism acceptance was something different. It was compassion and empathy for people. It was an attempt to separate terrorists and the people they lived among. It was a driving desire to retain our humanity in the face of inhumanity, and not assume everyone wearing a turban or praying to Allah was a dangerous fanatic who wanted to kill us. I wasn't part of that bubble. I really wasn't. I thought that bubble stemmed from naiveté and misguided attention-seeking. Now that the bubble has burst, and all vestiges of that enlightenment have been swept into the fringes of the 'liberal America-haters', I realize that I was wrong. I was an asshole. I was the problem.

Now, we live in a country where a supposedly respectable columnist can get on television and defend the war with the same rationale most of us originally used to oppose it. It was punitive aggression. The target was chosen arbitrarily. It was just an attempt to spread fear of American force, and establish American dominance in the region. It had nothing to do with 9/11. It had nothing to do with spreading democracy. It had nothing to do with overthrowing a dictator. It was just flexing a muscle that needed flexing, even if it meant the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

And that's... Okay.

Tit For Tat

America, as a nation and as a group of individuals, has a responsibility to its men and women of its armed services. That responsibility is to appreciate their sacrifices, and never take them for granted, using their force only when necessary and taking care of the injured when they return. America has let its armed forces down in this regard. No question about it.

Members of the armed forces also have a responsibility. Because of their jobs, they are representatives of our country. It is not their sole responsibility to kill more of the enemy than the enemy kills of them. They are peacekeepers, charged with the much more daunting task of winning hearts and minds. When they abandon that responsibility, not by following orders but by simply being cruel assholes, they let their country down.

This is what we have to remember before we do something stupid like invade a country for no particular reason, other than to show them that our penises are much, much larger than theirs. Our military is made up of mostly kids. Most of them are good kids, but they're still kids, and their training has squeezed out a lot of their conscience and aversion to violence. Some of them will not be able to handle it, and we are sending those people to be de facto good will ambassadors. Winning hearts and minds would be easy if people in other countries loved and supported American troops as much as we do. But they don't. That's why this matters.

Blowing It

This is absolutely shameful. Somebody thought it would be good idea to plant a bomb at an Army recruitment center in New York City. I can't help but assume that it was some assclown anti-war protest gone way too far, and it looks like the media is already starting to assume the same thing.

This has nothing to do with protesting the occupation of Iraq. This is domestic terrorism, and whoever did it should be dropped from the observation deck of the Empire State Building, preferably with a squad of sharpshooters armed with BB guns pegging him the whole way down.

The military is not the problem. The military is full of men and women who put their lives on the line for their country. Some of them are wonderful people, and some of them are not. Those who do wrong need to be held accountable, but as a whole they deserve our respect. But most importantly, they are a tool of the government. If the military is being used improperly, and it certainly is, then it is not the fault of the military or anyone in the military, but the fault of the government. And since we still like to think we live in a representative democracy, the government is us. We're responsible. Not the military, not the Army, and not an Army recruitment center on Manhattan. Us. All of us. It's our fault. It's our problem.

I can already see where this is likely going. The right is going to use this as proof positive that the anti-war crowd is made up of a bunch of unstrung fringe lunatics. Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are going to be challenged to denounce it, which they certainly will, but simply by challenging them to denounce it the point will be made; John McCain doesn't need to denounce it. We already know he's not an America-hating communist Muslim terrorist-sympathizer.

On the other hand, an event like this provides impetus for irrational troop worship, which is a serious hinderance to rational discussion and debate about the occupation. Bloomburg started it off already.

"The fact that this appears deliberately directed at the recruiting station insults every one of our brave men and women in uniform stationed around the world fighting to defend our freedoms and the things we hold so dear."

Let's not get crazy here. This attack didn't insult anyone. It's meant to create fear and stir up like-minded potential vigilantes. And can we please ban the term 'defending our freedoms'? My freedoms are not in peril from rag-tag groups of insurgents in Iraq, they're in peril from an authoritarian presidential administration, a weak legislature and an apathetic citizenry. I respect people in the military, but right now, our military is busy defending imperialism, racism, religious intolerance and corporate greed; these are not things that I hold so dear. The misuse of the military pisses me off... I suppose that should be obvious, as it is the driving force behind my abandoning the political party I belonged to for twelve years. But I'm not pissed off at the military. I appreciate the military. I'm pissed off at a government that would sacrifice the lives of its soldiers to line the pockets of the wealthy, and a culture that would let it happen because people would rather be safe than do what's right.

RIP Gary Gygax

The death of the legendary Gary Gygax leaves the door open to all sorts of cracks about failed saving throws and low constitution scores. Fuck all that. Gygax was a genius who contributed something new to the world, something very special and never since duplicated. His passing is incredibly sad. Let the jokes come later. This guy had been in failing health for years, but was running weekly dungeon romps up until this past January. I whine and moan about my inability to find time or energy to run a game these days, and I'm put to shame.

Tycho at Penny Arcade has written the best tribute I've seen so far, so I'll simply quote it and, in spirit if not particulars, agree wholeheartedly.

The first time I ever played Dungeons & Dragons, I was six years old - books with great red demons on the cover that dared us to claim their riches, subtitled by this alien name Gygax. My mother was furious when she found my uncles had exposed me to those subterranean burrows, spilling over with rubies, and tourmalines, and the wealth of old kings even songs no longer remember. As a young man, I began hiding the books I bought inside my bed, which had a vast hollow space I had hidden in as a child. These books were soon discovered, and blamed for everything from recent colds to the dissolution of my parents' marriage. I took the wrong lesson, I'm afraid: I didn't learn to fear them. What I learned was that books, some books, were swollen with power - and this power projected into the physical realm. Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes.

Indiana Jones and the Epitome of Mediocrity

Yeah, I'm totally looking forward to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I do love me some Indy. He inspired me to take up the ancient art of fedora-wearing, and my iPhone happily belts out John William's rousing theme song to announce an incoming call. So, yeah, I'm a fan.

Yet somehow, I am not at all threatened by the bold announcement made by Uwe Boll recently. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Boll's oeuvre, he is the master of turning video games into mind-numbingly awful films. His 'works' include such masterpieces as The House of the Dead ("House of the Dead, sadly, is so bad it's bad." - Ty Burr, Boston Globe), Bloodrayne ("Semicoherent." -Kyle Smith, New York Post), and In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale ("As numbing and depressing to watch as suits hammering out a film-packaging deal one venal clause at a time." -Jim Ridley, LA Weely). His newest stroke of banal genius is Postal, based on the controversial video game of the same name. Regarding that film, Mr. Boll sent out an e-mail. Snippets are courtesy of Bloody Disgusting.com.

"On the Indiana Jones weekend - May 23 - we will go out and destroy Indiana Jones in the Box Office! We all know that Harrison Ford is older as my grandpa and his time is up - would Michael Moore say!"

Apparently, I missed Michael Moore's brilliant documentary about aging movie stars, The Centrum Silver Screen.

"Spielberg gets sloppy. We saw that with War of the Worlds (why the fuck the older brother survived?) and also in parts of Jaws, E.T., Munich etc.! My performance in Postal as 'Nazi Theme Park Owner' outperforms easily Ben Kingsley in Schindler's List!"

When releasing a press release, even in e-mail form to horror film blogs, it's best to include the word 'fuck' a few times. Shows you mean business.

In POSTAL: Living on Social Security and unemployed, DUDE desperately seeks employment, but instead finds a life of violent action and adventure when he teams up with his UNCLE DAVE, a financially strapped cult leader, in an effort to rip off an amusement park, only to find that the Taliban are trying the same heist simultaneously.

Well, I'm sold. Screw you, Indy. I'm catching me some UNCLE DAVE.

Oh, shit... I just noticed Dave Foley is appearing in this hemorrhoid of a film. That must be one hungry, hungry Kid in the Hall.

Damn It

I don't love Obama so much more than Hillary that I'm dying to see Obama clinch the nomination. I'd vote for either of them, with neither hesitation nor enthusiasm. I was really hoping Obama would clean house last night, however, just to put this thing to bed. No matter who you support, last night was good news for only one person, and that person is John McCain.

John McCain is a media darling. He panders to the far-right crazies while the media assures moderates and independents that he's their candidate. The last thing we want to give him is a head start on the national election while the two Democratic candidates tear each other to pieces. But that's exactly what he's getting, and if you don't think his people know exactly how to take advantage of the fact, you're kidding yourself.

I don't think November is looking very good right now. Maybe I'm panicking too early, but I'm definitely starting to panic.