September 2007 Archives

Every quarter, we see an increase in the number of beat up little pickup trucks, many pulling trailers, cruising the streets of the neighborhood.

It's bulk trash collection time.

And there is apparently a large and possibly growing community of people who derive some or part of their income from going through the neighborhoods, slowing down to peer at the piles of trash left at the curbsides, picking out the still usable treasures and loading them up. Entire families are engaged in this activity.

Can't say I blame them. The more well-to-do neighborhoods will leave perfectly usable furniture (but, sad to say, last year's styles), computer equipment, fencing materials, appliances, televisions, machinery, etc. all sitting there, ripe for the picking. The early trucking family gets the best of the lot but even today, four days into our cycle, I'm seeing trucks loaded up with some pretty fine looking furniture.

My own contribution this quarter was pretty slim: I had only an old but serviceable chandelier (sans glass chimneys) and a broken pool brush to offer. They were both snapped right up. I have some large boxes I didn't feel like cutting down for regular trash pickup, so they're still sitting out there waiting for the city truck to grab 'em next week.

I'm thinking I'm missing out on something, though. I've been meaning to refurnish my living room, and some of the stuff that's going past my window is, at least from this distance, really nice.

I may have to get me a pickup truck.

Hey. Don't get me wrong. I am aligned with the teachings of Christ. I am also aligned, for the most part, with the political philosophy that drives Big L Libertarians and I am more Right-leaning than Left.

But I've got issues with the message in the latest bit of e-mail spam I got from a friend. I'm quoting it below -- I have had mercy on you in that I cleaned up the pretentious fluffy formatting and added a link to Snopes tracking the veracity of the authorship of this piece. My commentary follows.

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word "God" is mentioned.... a kid in Arizona wrote the attached NEW School prayer. I liked it.

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen

If you aren't ashamed to do this, please pass this on.
Jesus said, "If you are ashamed of me,
I will be ashamed of you before my Father."

First, and foremost: smarmy, sniffy, uber-superior life-style comparisons on the part of self-righteous anybodies leave me cold. Sad to say we seem to see it more often from Christians than from other demographic groups, which is a smudge if you ask me.

I agree to an extent with the overall sentiment: I have long argued that outright banning any student from praying aloud at any time he or she feels like praying aloud (within certain social norms or classroom needs, mind) is wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't really care if Myrna gets upset because Kathleen mutters a prayer in her hearing. I could give a fuck if Lenny, whose father is a hardcore atheist, has to understand that other people do believe in a vast invisible meddling force from beyond. And, really, c'mon Moonspirit. You can argue that the deity is really Goddess all you like, but it's okay that Chris thinks God is the father, 'k?

And, really, if we can study the spiritual practices of other cultures, then permitting people to practice theirs (within, again, the boundaries of propriety) in an unobtrusive manner should be fine.

Here's my beef (apologies to my Hindu buddies):

a) There is nothing wrong with unnaturally colored hair, and how the fuck DARE you insinuate otherwise you sanctimonious little fart.
b) Ditto mode of dress. If someone wants to do the tacky emo or goth motif, or saggy jeans with more holes than cloth, or even if they're a muffin-top and insist on wearing low-riders and crop tops, there's nothing morally wrong with that. Jesus did not say "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Vogue and GQ", right.
c) ditto piercing/tattoos
d) pregnant whatevers. Societally difficult. Unwed 'rents aren't a good idea no matter what your religious beliefs. But, hello, the Bible itself warns about making judgments. Geddit? Can you say "WWJD"? Ya?
e) so first you bitch about the pregger peeps, now you think dispensing birth control and acknowledging that we're all imperfect is a bad idea. 'k. Guess everyone has to be perfect like you.

That's pretty much it. I am impatient with the unChristian stance so many Christians adopt.

Dogs are pack animals, and when I leave the room, my two usually follow me so's the pack can stay together. If they're snoozin' when I go off to another room, then they set off in search of me when they wake.

So it was that I was sitting in a ... um ... rather small and echoey chamber. I was alone in the house, so I left the door open. A dog trotted past the open door.

A moment later, the dog trotted past headed in the opposite direction.

I could hear a "tick tick tick" of toenails on tile as the second dog headed down the hallway. Teegan was less intent, more cautious in her approach than the first dog, Murphy, who seemed more inclined to just blast ahead in frantic search. Teegan stopped just before reaching the doorway.

I watched.

First her long, black snout appeared, then one eye. Then snout and eye disappeared.

Next, Teegan walked slowly past the door, glancing into the room fully on her way past. She stopped, turned, then passed the door again, stopping and poking her head fully into the room, gazing at me.

Meanwhile, Murphy finished her crazed search of the rest of the house, the yard, and beneath the sofa and came to join Teegan.

While Teegan was still assessing the situation, Murphy burst into the, uh, small echoey chamber, her entire body quivering in a paroxysm of dogmatic celebration at having found me. She bounded over, licked my feet, then bounded back to head-butt Teegan.

What I ask for, O God, is five minutes in the mind of a dog. I really want to know just what the fuck was going on in their heads as they executed these maneuvers. Because they are the most silly-assed damned creatures on this planet, God love 'em.

A friend of mine wants his name on his vanity plate. He lucked out when the last guy to have the name on a plate in his state died and his widow decided not to renew the plate, relinquishing the four letters back into the bin. The state DMV notified my friend that the plate was now available (he put himself on a wait list for it). He applied. The rep initially approved it.

Then it was turned down.

Why?

Because his name is, apparently, offensive. See, it's a variation of the name "Richard." The guy's a Dick. He has been known by that name his entire life, does business with that name, appears on television using that name, ran for local office with that name and shares that name with many politicians and celebrities. Why, one dick is first in line to lead our country if the bush becomes incapacitated. The media unabashedly prints and speaks that foul word many times a day.

Of course, every Peter, Willie and Wang knows that "Dick" isn't a name at all, but a slang word for male genitalia, right?

Vermont's DMV has decided to crack down on these important matters following a lost case in which a religious rights group took up arms in a suit in federal court over the "right" to use a reference to a bible verse on a vanity plate.

Shawn Byrne tried to get JOHN316, was turned down, appealed, turned down, sued and the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative organization that states it defends religious liberty as represented by attorney Joshua Carden took up his case. This is old news, but it is the one that has the state of Vermont looking to ensure no one offends anyone with their license plate.

Carden said his client is only seeking to uphold his rights to free expression on his license plate. "We're not seeking big money damages," he said. According to the lawsuit, Byrne applied to the state DMV for a vanity plate on April 20, for his Ford pickup. The application asked for Byrne to list three choices for his vanity plate. Byrne listed, "JOHN316," "JN316" and "JN36TN." The application also asked Byrne what each selection represented, and in each case he wrote, "Bible passage." [...] A month after applying for the plate Byrne received notice from the state DMV stating that all three requests had been turned down. "It has been deemed to be a combination that refers to deity and has been denied based on that reason," the letter read. Byrne appealed, but an administrative judge upheld the denial, the lawsuit stated. The law allows DMV to reject a word or phrase considered offensive or confusing to the general public. The regulations state that license plates are not be allowed to have a combination of letters or numbers that refer to any language to race, religion, color, deity, ethnic heritage, gender, sexual orientation, disability status or political affiliation.

The Feds disagreed that it was a First Amendment issue. He doesn't have a fundamental right to "speak" via his license plate. So it's really up to the states to make a list of things they don't like and then stick to that list. And Vermont is very much sticking Dick.

I wonder, though, if maybe these bureaucratic nanny types don't go too far overboard. A vanity plate is, after all, something special to the individual. Its intent is to garner extra income to the state while permitting people to uniquely identify themselves. Some attempts are intended to shock or offend -- like I wouldn't see a non-offensive use of the word "cunt", would you? Yet the whole notion that the same driver who can put a fish on his car will suddenly offend someone if his plate refers to God is a bit extreme. Is the state promoting religion because they took money in order to print something to the specification of the customer? The community who calls a guy "Dick" to his face is going to be offended if his car says "Dick" on it?

Does that not seem a bit over the top to you?

If you're ever stumped for what to get the technogeek in your family:

Can be purchased here.

I don't think asking for sex is a bad thing.

Oh, sure, there are extenuating circumstances to consider. For example, pressuring someone into performing a sexual act for you is a bad thing. Continually pursuing it with someone who has made it clear they don't want it is a bad thing. Using it to manipulate ... that's a borderline kind of issue for me. I think that convincing people to do things that you consider beneficial to yourself is fine so long as you're not harming the people you're convincing, and if part of that marketing campaign involves you doing sexual things for them, well, hello. That's rather what marriage is about in a way. If there's mutual benefit, and you don't mind it? Bring it on, baby.

So when Idaho Senator Whazziz Craig asked a cop to do some sex stuff with him while he was in an airport bathroom, well, on the surface that is not a bad thing. It's a guy wanting sex. If the other guy wanted to do it, well and good.

Laws that make that a bad thing should be there to protect people from unwanted sex, but sometimes they're a bit too broad. They are based more on the Puritanical view that sex is icky and for keeping private and only between sanctioned partners and just don't talk about it, 'k? Being asked to do something sexual is only bad if you're emotionally traumatized by it. Maybe if you were abused or raped, you'd legitimately fear any such sexual encounter. Flirtation between people at a bar might be just as bad as the seamy, rather icky notion of some lonely guy shoving his foot underneath a stall in a grimy bathroom.

'Course, reportedly, Craig didn't just stop with the solicitation. When the cop flashed his creds, the good Senator flashed his own and tried, limply, to muscle his way out of a sticky situation.

That's crass.

And, of course, there's the whole hoo-ha about him being "gay" and yet being an outspoken opponent against various gay privileges.

Sorry, but

a) having sex with a man does not make you gay. It means you're willing to have gay sex. There's a difference. I know people disagree, but tough.

b) being gay does not mean you have to support the political desires of a large number of gay people. There actually are gay people who do not think that gay "marriage" should be legitimized. They view "marriage" as something special, sacred, and meant to be between men and women who intend to reproduce, etc. I disagree with that, personally, but I recognize that people think that way.

So what's this rambling screed all about?

Simply: Craig isn't being railroaded because he committed a horrible sin/crime/whatever or because he's gay, or because he's a hypocrite. He is being pushed out because the perception of wrongdoing has stronger ju-ju than actual wrongdoing.

And that is, quite simply, the way the world works. It is neither good nor bad. It just is.

Don't believe me? Then consider that if you believe murder is wrong, why are some murders overlooked? If a bad guy gets gunned down in cold, murderous blood, does his murder get investigated and prosecuted with the same fervor as when a child is killed? Sometimes. But not always. Politicians in particular are doing shady, amoral things all the time and so long as they're not obvious about it, don't get caught, and are generally doing well, then leave it be. You shade what is "good" and what is "bad".

But get caught doing something normal -- like seeing if the guy next to you wants to give you a quickie hummer -- and people who are squeamish about it, people who dislike the privilege that comes with public office and who wans to whap congresscritters simply for breathing, along with people who just like to cause trouble will raise up the mob spectre and then that guy's ass is pwned.

Craig is right to step down. He isn't exactly throwing away thirty years as a politician -- he served those years and did his job so they weren't really wasted, were they? And he'll continue his life in some other aspect. I'm sure he'll take care of himself. But he committed the sin of being caught on the wrong side of public perception, and once you've gone there, you need to go.

Ask Caesar, fuck sake.