Author, Evan Eisenberg has proposed an exam for those seeking their poetic license. Here are a couple of examples:
According to Code, spaces between stanzas must be
no greater than two inches
no less than one yawp
provided with a vermin-proof cap
filled with fine sand
Enjambment is permitted when
space does not allow installation of a fixture on one line
a long-sweep 1/4 bend is used to connect the lines
a relief yoke vent is installed to vent overflow
a variance is granted by the Prosody Department
AND
Given the spate of hypothetical questions in the recent primary debates, Hart Seely has proposed some probing possible scenarios:
Candidates, pay attention: An international financier has smuggled an atom bomb into Fort Knox. He loves only gold. Only gold. After an amazing sequence of events, including car chases, sexual conquests, and your defeat of the assassin known as Oddjob, you find yourself staring at the interior of a nuclear device. The final seconds are ticking down. This goes to you, Senator Clinton: Do you cut the blue wire, or do you cut the red wire?
A tornado has transported you to a magical land, where a jubilant throng of midgets greets you as liberator. They direct you toward a road paved with yellow bricks. We’ll start with you, Mayor Giuliani. Would you consider capturing one of these exotic creatures and subjecting him or her to enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding and electric shock, if it means extracting vital information that will determine whether the yellow route leads home—or into a trap?
Inspired by Seely, I have devised my own hypothetical - which may be submitted to you-tube in the future:
Mr Thompson, you have just completed a new super weapon, a destruco-sphere, designed to destroy the home world of terrorists attacking your empire. You discover a corrupt sub-contractor has sold the plans to your weapon to the terrorists. Would you continue with your final attack — taking a chance that the terrorists would destroy your $100 billion investment, or would you withdraw to redesign your ultimate weapon?
Nearly two months ago Kenneth Cummings Jr disappeared outside of Cypress, TX. His burnt remains were discovered recently on property linked to Terry Mark Mangum, who had used Mr. Cummings credit cards on the night of the disappearance. Mr Mangum was arrested and confessed to murder:Mangum, who described himself as “definitely not a homosexual,” said God called on him to “carry out a code of retribution” by killing a gay man because “sexual perversion” is the “worst sin.”
Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.
“I planned on sending him to hell,” he said.
There can be little doubt that Mr. Mangum is a bit touched in the head; yet, what is the difference between a man who brutally murders another because he is inspired by ‘god’ and a man who blows himself up in a crowded bus because he is inspired by ‘god’? Ultimately, the only difference lies in the volume of lives maimed and killed. Mr. Mangum may have only barbarically snuffed out one life, but he left behind the maimed lives of Mr. Cummings’ friends and family. Mr. Mangum’s act was designed to do more then kill one man, like a jihadi bomber, the act was framed to carry out divine justice.
I have written previously that the hate filled rhetoric of conservative christians will, eventually, lead to acts of violence. Many will dismiss Mangum as an extreme case, an aberration, but in fact Mangum was following the religious principles he was taught. He was following the literal Word of God, and as a principle of faith the Word cannot be questioned.
Mangum’s faith in the Word cannot really be questioned but his actions, and those who will follow him, should be treated most harshly. Conservative christians have been fighting the passage of HR.1592 (The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) for the past several months on the grounds that the law represents infringement upon their religious speech. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the present hate crimes statutes (see 18 U.S.C.§ 245 and § 247) include religious belief and race among the protected classes. The current bill before congress simply adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the existing classes, as well as expanding local resources and federal jurisdiction. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that this law would somehow prevent religious leaders from criticizing homosexuality. Existing laws have stopped no one, including myself, from criticizing religious belief or behavior; I know of no atheist arrested under these laws for mocking religion or speaking out against God.
HR.1592 adds additional penalties to existing crimes committed for reasons of bias. Some will argue that a ‘crime is a crime’, and no additional prosecution is needed. As a society we separate classes of the same offense all the time — the rape of a child is treated vastly differently then the rape of an adult. In a pluralistic society it seems prudent that we should treat some crimes as more heinous than others because they seek to undermine the fabric of our civil society. A murderer, for instance, targeting Jews simply for their religious beliefs commits a worse crime then a murderer who targets individuals for their money. This is because our society values religious diversity and it is cognizant of the historic tragedy of anti-semitic crimes. Sexual preference and gender identity are as core to ones identity as race or religious belief. There exists mountains of historical evidence to show that crimes based upon these two classes are prevalent and and often under prosecuted. The cold blooded murder of Mr.Cummings is simply the most recent, public, testament to this fact.
As Tom, at PurpleScarf, has pointed out: conservative christians seem to believe the entire notion of hate crimes is a joke. At the same time they argue that additional penalties to crimes motivated by the hatred of a victim’s sexual orientation constitute a burden upon their religious rights. The only conclusion that can be drawn by this argument is that conservative christian leaders seek to promote some level of violence. There is really no other explanation: we tolerate abhorrent speech regularly but action is prosecuted. As a society, we tolerate — and even accommodate — groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, neo-nazis, as well as numerous other supremest groups. Legal prosecutions of these groups have only occurred when criminal action was taken on behalf of the group. Ultimately, this is what concerns these religious leaders: that either they will be deterred from inciting criminal violence, or that their bigotry will be relegated to the same acceptance levels as that of the Klan. In either case, civil society wins, and perhaps the the brutalization that Mr. Cummings suffered won’t be repeated.
Twenty five years ago, growing up in a dying industrial city of the Midwest, I found myself involved with a group of homeless veterans, most of whom had served in Viet Nam. I cannot say that I befriended any of these soldiers - as they didn’t make friends, and barely tolerated one another at times. But they relied upon each other for some understanding, protection, and some level of compassion. In the 80’s these men reminded people of an unsuccessful war which had divided our nation. There was no sunshine for them from Regan’s ‘morning in America’. Many of them had been forced from VA homes and hospitals as federal funding was cut. They panhandled during the day to scrape up enough to medicate themselves at night. Even drunk and doped many of them would jump and roll with amazing agility at the sound of an unfamiliar footstep in the park where we would meet. Late at night they would wake up screaming or sit up and simply stare intently into space. For these men the war never ended. They were still soldiers — fighting the same war; the same battles. They could never come home.
Last month the Pentagon issued a report analyzing the state of mental health among our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to that report
Based on data in their 2004 study, Hoge and colleagues estimated that, using strict screening criteria, 17 percent of soldiers from brigade combat teams would be at risk for developing clinically significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, or anxiety after deployment, and that an even higher percentage (28%) would experience symptoms if broader screening criteria were used (Hoge, Castro, Messer, McGurck, Cotting & Koffman, 2004). The prevalence of PTSD within a year of combat deployment was estimated to range from 10 to 25 percent (Hoge et al., 2004). More recent data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment (PDHRA), which is administered to service members 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment, indicate that 38 percent of Soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report psychological symptoms. Among members of the National Guard, the figure rises to 49 percent (U.S. Air Force, 2007; U.S. Army, 2007; U.S. Navy, 2007). Psychological concerns are also significantly higher among those with repeated deployments, a rapidly growing cohort. Psychological concerns among family members of deployed and returning Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans, while yet to be fully quantified, are also an issue of concern. Further, hundreds of thousands of U.S. children have experienced the deployment of a parent. Clearly, the challenges are enormous and the consequences of non-performance are significant.
Despite its own findings, the Pentagon and the Veteran’s Administration have been unable, or unwilling, to provide the post-war care these soldiers require. This week veterans’ groups sued the VA in order to get the basic health care that was promised — and owed to these men and women. Veterans themselves were too afraid of reprisals to take action against their own government that umbrella organizations had to initiate action for them. Unfortunately, this illustrates but a tiny sliver of the problem. Those involved in the suit have already left the military service and have been handed to the VA; there are over 100,000 who have not yet completed their service and have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a young man, I opposed the Viet Nam conflict; as a middle aged man, I opposed the invasion of Iraq. They were and remain pointless conflicts based more on hubris then on national security. The men and women who serve(d) in these conflicts served our nation - regarless of how one feels about the conflict or the soldiers - and they require our respect and aid. Long after our soldiers leave Iraq, after the protest banners are thrown into the basement, and after the magnetic ribbons are removed from vehicles, many of the soldiers who served will be suffering the effects of this war. When those days come — and they are coming soon — when thousands of veterans seek medical care, housing, food, or simply hit you up for a buck on the street, then the phrase “support the troops” will have real meaning. It will demand money, compassion, and empathy. We should all begin offering those things today with the knowledge that more will be required of us tomorrow.
There are days when I wonder if I have stumbled into some poorly written parody of reality. In assessing the greatest threats that law enforcement will face in the future, Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty announced this week that the greatest future threat we face is . . . wait for it . . . Cyborgs. Yes, Cyborgs:
“Our environmental scanning tells us that even with some of the cloning of human beings - not necessarily in Australia but in those countries that are going to allow it - you could have potentially a cloned part-person, part-robot,” he told a parliamentary inquiry into the future impact of organised crime in Canberra.
Putting aside the Commissioner’s all too sci-fi sounding ‘environmental scanning’ — which seems to suggest absolutely nothing connected to reality — Keetly believes that aside from bilking people out of money through virtual worlds, that organized criminals will begin to create hybrid human-robot henchmen. Of course, one would assume that eventually the cyborgs would simply overthrow the puny non-hybrid mobsters and take over, leaving simply a cyborg mafia. Nonetheless, the Commissioner did not seem to suggest the need to start building cyborg policemen to counter the threat, but I am sure he was just priming the pump for his budget request.
I understand that it has become the norm for public officials and new organizations to present new and interesting things to frighten us, but come on; you’re not even trying anymore!
The last few days have wreaked a veritable theo-paluzza of christian supremacist essays. It seems, based on these, that conservative christians have moved beyond simply preaching that there’s is the best interpretation to christianity - or any relationship with the divine - to actively stating that no belief other then their’s is christian, let alone divinely inspired.
First up we the Miter Man, the heir to Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. This week his holiness reasserted the primacy, or central truth, that his is the one and only true church of God:
These ecclesial (sic) Communities [Protestant denominations] which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.
Ie. No celebrate priest + No magic wafer = No God for You. To be fair, this has always been part of the catholic doctrine, and was hammered into us when I was a kid, but you’d think the church would have a somewhat more expansive view of the world and humanity after nearly 2000 years.
Next up, the battling Calvinist, Cal Thomas. On Tuesday, the pious pundit published an essay attacking the faith of Hillary Clinton. At the end of the piece Cal tries to suggest that he’s simply upset that Clinton would use faith a political prop: shocked he is; shocked I say! to discover there’s religion going on in politics. But make no mistake, Cal’s real problem is that he finds Clinton’s theology false:
Liberal faith, which is to say a faith that discounts the authority of Scripture in favor of a constantly evolving, poll-tested relevancy to modern concerns — such as the environment, what kind of SUV Jesus would drive, larger government programs and other “do-good” pursuits — ultimately morphs into societal and self-improvement efforts and jettisons the life-changing message of salvation, forgiveness of sins and a transformed life.
Yes Cal takes particular issue with the the notion that salvation is tied to good works — one can’t imagine why. Granted, this is an issue of hot theological debate, but Cal’s dismissing of it as just silly is sure to offend the Miter Man and his followers. As the catechism of the catholicism states:
1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.
But who you might ask could be more theologically unhinged then Battling Cal? In this ring we present Madman David ‘The Moralist’ McCullough. Crazed by the notion that Democratic candidates would participate in a debate on gay and lesbian issues, McCullough sat down at his 1961 IBM selectric, fed in some carbon paper, and began foaming away:
In the attempt by the three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination America will see for the first time (or at least the ten viewers who get LOGO as part of their cable package) how far Democratic candidates are willing to pander to get a vote.
Does it take an entire broadcast hour for each of them to “out gay” the other one? Will Obama and/or Edwards show up in Chiffon? Will Hillary pass love notes to Etheridge?
What will happen is that each of these candidates will have to also later face the same “faith-based” audiences that they have been attempting to woo in recent weeks. Heaven forbid, but Obama might even have to make a follow up appearance in Rick Warren’s pulpit to announce the results of his most recent AIDS test. And what will they have to say then?
See here is the unrelenting truth, put as plainly as humanly possible:
Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on. So the candidates can not have it both ways.
Wow - what a rant: you got lesbians, a couple of references of cross dressing, and a little AIDS jab - just to remind us that even though the disease is killing millions of people a year, it’s still a ‘gay thing’. For the Madman, it just inconceivable that churches exist which welcome gay and lesbian parishioners. Christian churches which actually, allow gays and lesbians to serve as deacons, ministers, and even bishops. Dave makes it clear, these institutions just aren’t christian — of course this is bound to annoy some Episcopals and other denominations. In all fairness to The Moralist, a good half of his rant is devoted to the fact that the Democratic candidates will not appear on Fox News for a debate. He opines that they are simply afraid of the unbiased sharp wit of Brit Hume — a man who has dedicated more air time to John Edwards hair then any other newscaster. I would assume that that the Mr. Obama, and the other candidates, simply believe there is more substance in debating gay and lesbian issues then there is in receiving tonsorial tips from Mr. Hume.
Finally, we come to the fitful, fearful, fundamentalist, American Family Association. These defenders of all things American and religious issued a fatwa warning their followers of the gravest threat to America yet: Hindus. It seems that Rajan Zed, a hindu chaplin, was to deliver the open prayer for the US Senate on Thursday. The very idea of this sent them into a fit of conniptions:
WallBuilders president David Barton is questioning why the U.S. government is seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god. Barton points out that since Hindus worship multiple gods, the prayer will be completely outside the American paradigm, flying in the face of the American motto “One Nation Under God.”
. . . “And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration [of Independence] when they talked about Creator — that’s not one that fits here because we don’t know which creator we’re talking about within the Hindu religion.”
Barton says given the fact that Hindus are a tiny constituency of the American public, he questions the motivation of Senate leaders. “This is not a religion that has produced great things in the world,” he observes. ” . .
And while Barton acknowledges there is not constitutional problem with a Hindu prayer in the Senate, he wonders about the political side of it. “One definitely wonders about the pragmatic side of it,” he says. “What is the message, and why is the message needed? . . .”
Yea, what did India ever give us — except for sine, cosine, the modern decimal numbering system, the concept of zero, and metallurgy. But what have they done for us lately? The apoplectic AFA just can’t fathom the notion that maybe the message we are sending is one of religious tolerance and diversity. For them diversity is a simple matter of which jesus you worship: avenging jesus or salvation jesus. Yesterday, of course, some of the possessed, heading the AFA’s call to save our nation from the horrors of polytheism interrupted Chaplin Zed’s prayer. Shouting “Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer which is an abomination in your sight.”, they were handcuffed and removed. Their final words while being ejected were “we are Christians and patriots”. While one, obviously, cannot argue with the former, the latter is open to grave skepticism.
As an atheist, of course, I find all of this a little sad and amusing — like watching a group of children argue as to whose father can beat up whose. As a human being and an American, I find all of this more then a little repulsive and appalling. As one commentator to some of these events pointed out, he was reminded of the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Others have pointed out that our religious tolerance has as a nation has fostered internal peace and theological growth. I have generally seen religion as a primeval force for division and disharmony, other have argued that it is the great motivating force to bring about a unified humanity. At this point, the evidence appears to be on my side.
Rep. Schakowsky it is time that we reaffirm the founding principle of our republic: that we are a nation of laws, and not men. As it has become clear that President Bush is unwilling to expel Mr. Gonzales from his position, I urge you, I implore you, to exercise your responsibilities as a lawmaker. It is past time that articles of impeachment be brought against Mr. Gonzales.
As Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Gonzales has shown he is unable to enforce existing laws, or apply them equally to all citizens, and has showed contempt for those who question his actions. Rep. Schakowsky the House of Representatives has the authority to return the rule of law to the Justice Department; it need only exercise the will to use that authority.
Again, I urge you to return the balance of law to our government. If the current situation is allowed to continue it will set precedent for all future Attorneys General and all future executives. Lack of action today will leave our children and grandchildren less equal and less free under he law.
It seems a group of atheist students at the University of Texas, San Antonio, have set up an interesting program to trade pornography for bibles — not vice versa, however. I am not sure that the two, bibles and porn, are mutually exclusive though, that one would have to give up the latter for the former. Rick Hawkins, paster at UTSA, stated: “I don’t know one believer that would take his Bible and turn it in for pornography.” But paster Hawkins may put too much faith into his flock. A poll conducted last year suggested that 50% of, self-proclaimed, Christian men consumed pornography, and 20% of Christian women admitted to do so as well. One would assume that good Christians possess more then a single bible, making such an exchange less of a burden.
Poetry Humor, Politics Humor
