Marching out

Well that's one month of blogging. If you are reading this please take the opportunity to post in my comments how you think I'm doing, if you have any thoughts about it at all, and what type of thing you'd like to read or if you'd like me to just shut up. Of course, I won't do that, but maybe you will feel better.

Show Trial

The Moussaoui trial is so wonderful. We caught a terrorist. Well actually we caught a bunch but we aren't going to try them. Just Moussaoui for now. He's so helpful. He will plead guilty. He will try and testify for the prosecution. He will make up stories about how he was going to run a plane into the white house, even when the mastermind of the whole operation says he was going to be part of a second wave of attacks. And he was in custody at the time of the attacks. Oh and he will basically advocate for the death penalty against himself. But his testimony that he hates America and his lack of contrition is so useful, so wonderful, so motivating.
*
Wait a minute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being held too. We're going to try him too right? No. Well we're going to try everyone in Guantanamo right? No. Oh that's right Scalia says they are enemy combatants and don't need a trial in a time of war. And then he tells you to go F yourself (That's Sicilian!). Only this war goes on forever and we haven't declared war against anyone and anyone could be the enemy. Usually you hold combatants until the end of the conflict. There is probably no end to this conflict so I guess we hold them forever. And since it's not against a nation state it is so unclear what the rules should be. But we haven't even clearly articulated a war against Al Quaeda. Instead we have a vague notion that this is a war against terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism or even evil.
*
Oh and there is Osama. Now I know we are going to try him. Or no. He's going to be Elvis bin Ladin. It's going to be 2038 and we're going to be talking about he could still be alive but just very old. And any man who walks into a local deli and orders a peanut butter and banana sandwich on the bread of the infidel (PBOA) could be him. And now the Democrats want to get him. If it wasn't a half-hearted attempt at reasoning their way out of the ideological basement its too little too late.
*
Now I'm no softie. I think we should have declared war on Al Quaeda. They took responsibility for the attack, they waged total war. They must be responsible for that. Only the Taliban is not Al Quaeda, the Iraqi people are not Al Quaeda, the people of Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya are not Al Quaeda. Right now it just looks like we have gone on the mother of all tangents.

Warning! This product may contain peanuts.

Interesting post and links at Word Munger regarding self-censoring in the teaching of evolution.

Perhaps our public schools should offer concerned parents a waiver from the teaching of evolution. Not by teaching creation science and neglecting the teaching of evolution, but rather by letting parents opt out of teachings that do not conform to the bible. The would have the opportunity to keep their children from the secular explanations of the universe propounded by anthropology, biology, chemistry, ecology, and physics. Perhaps they could have study hall or gym during the time they would otherwise be in these classes. They could be allowed to read the bible in study hall. And sex education too (or health), that would be another opt out. And maybe English, to the extent that it covers secular texts. We could leave out non-christian history too, in order to avoid any appeal that a non-christian society might have. But math would remain.

Oh and presumably, these kids, once adults would have the good sense to make use of those people who learned anthropology, biology, chemistry, ecology and physics and those things which use science. Or maybe not.

God help us all.

How wonderful for us to bring democracy to Afghanistan and to see the tyranny of the majority in its majesty. And in the trappings of religious fundamentalism. The example is too clear to go into and too parallel to rumblings in this country.

And we were for democracy in Palestine too. Until Hamas. And then we let them know the price of democracy.

And we are still so wed to it. And for good reason.

Its going to work really well in Iraq. I only think they need a hundred years of native post- enlightnement political philosophers to really lay the groundwork. And everyone knows that the Locke and Mill Marine brigades are training Iraqi philosphers to do just that.

TK421

Yesterday, after much heavy lifting, I finally got a HDTV set up at home. Oh and the picture was beautiful. My wife remarked that she could see the fingerprints on C-3PO. That shows where her mind is at.

That movie is inescapable to me. How much of my entertainment time is spent chasing another Star Wars? Sure I've had to suffer with some plodding movie novelizations and a few Lucas movies of questionable worth, but I've also been able to discover Joseph Campbell and Akira Kurosawa.

*

I wonder if people who saw Gone With the Wind at an impressionable age felt the same way.

*

And for those who don't know - Red 2 was Wedge Antilles' callsign.

Recycler

The Roman Catholic Church in Burundi has instructed its clergy not to perform church weddings for those infected with AIDS (or pregnant women) as individuals who have premarital sex have not followed the teachings of the church and are not entitled to be married in the church.

*

The story is interesting and I believe the liberal knee-jerk reaction is to say, "that's not right." And although I don't agree with the position of the church, I don't oppose it.

*
And so I will recycle my thoughts from my sparring with Deep Thoughts further down. The conversation was about same-sex marriage but can be just as easily applied to the little conflagration in Burundi.

*

I recognize that marriage is a Christian sacrament and don't think the government needs to take that away. I think the government should give control of marriage back to the church exclusively. No more marriages of gays, non-Christians, or people who the church doesn't want to marry. I'd be fine with that. Because I think Christian marriages can be essentially a good thing, I think the state should recognize them as a legal union and provide some benefits.

*

But I do think the government should set up something for everyone else. It wouldn't entitle you to get into heaven. It wouldn't qualify as a marriage in the eyes of the god of (insert church here). But it would be legally binding and be a good start for people who wanted to try and work together, perhaps raise kids or do something else important. It might allow you to inherit from the other person, share control over finances, adopt kids or have them, control medical decision making in the event the other person is incapacitated, etc. etc. etc.

*

Does that impose morality? I don't know. No one has to think the other system is moral, good or anything. But I think that everyone should be able to agree that you shouldn't discriminate against either group. If no one could agree on that, then I guess discrimination against both groups would be fair game.

*

So I think the church should have its way in Burundi. But I also recognize what the consequences are. According to the BBC 6% of the population in Burundi has AIDS. In some countries in Africa it is double or triple that or more. If the Church really clamps down on its dogma it isn't doing itself any favors.

*

Whether its in the best interest of the church is another question. If the main aim of a church is total unity of thought and behavior among its adherents, and it has a high ante in terms of dogma, it seems to me there are only three choices (1) be small, (2) be content with believing your flock is faithful, when the reality is different or (3) crush free will and thought. I'm good with two of those options. As for the third, a friend once said, the more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.

iPod

Somewhat mirroring Voix I post my current, somewhat embarassing iPod top 10 most played for my Saturday punt post. The list was not edited to relect positively on the author.

1. Hung Up - Madonna
2. The Distance - Cake
3. Take It Off - The Donnas
4. Bulls on Parade - Rage Against the Machine
5. I Wanna Be Adored - The Stone Roses
6. Rio - Duran Duran
7. Electrical Storm - U2
8. Trip Like I Do - The Crystal Method
9. Private Idaho - The B-52s
10. Listen to Your Heart - D.H.T.

Meet the Press

I love the new war on the press because the coverage of "the Long War" is not upbeat. And in one sense the criticism is totally justified. The news media follows an "it bleeds it leads mentality." And I begrudgingly admit, that many arch-conservative commentators are completely accurate - many news readers are liberal and from time to time show their bias. However, the corporate ownership of the companies which produce the programs is conservative. If you think GE, a munitions manufacturer, parent company of NBC, is a liberal corporation, it is only because you are horribly misguided.

*

Why then do these conservatively owned companies continue to show gruesome, horrifying and morale-draining coverage of the war.

*

The answer is fairly simple - you. Liberal or conservative, the media is a ratings game. And if you think you are going to tune in night after night to watch a report of another school being built near Basra or the power grid increasing its capacity from 10 hours a day to 11 hours a day, you are fooling yourself. You would watch a heartwarming story about a GI helping some Iraqi kids get fresh water one time. Whether you hate the media or not, you love this story. Either you watch because you think the war is horrible and you can't bear to think that another day has passed with more American and Iraqi dead or you watch because you are furious that the liberal elite news media continues to show these misleading images and not the stories which you wouldn't watch.

*

The furor with which the news media has latched onto the story against the press demonstrates the point. Why aren't we hearing about all the wonderful things the press is doing and can do?

Ism

Saw Crash the other night. Three stars. What the movie did make me think about was what type of racism is worse, open or concealed.

I always thought we have perfected a very advanced type of discrimination. I see the same pattern with racial minorities and women. The system is so entrenched that Jim Crow laws and flagrant discrimination against women isn't necessary. Instead the group is encouraged to self-discriminate and destroy iteslf. Black on black crime, women fighting other women. If you are in the dominant group you can simply throw up your hands and say "I didn't do anything, just look at what they are doing to themselves." Every discrimination can be done by proxy. It is clean and efficient.

Crash presents a world where racism is surprisingly upfront. While that is no doubt true from time to time, that kind of racism can be spotted, challenged and in many cases, defeated. Isn't the worse racism the gentle racism that goes silent and undetected through our everday lives? The kind that doesn't show its face or allow itself to be challenged by free speech and the marketplace of ideas.

Unjust War

Oh. The BBC reports that "the US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons" according to the new National Security Strategy Handbook of the US.

Michael Walzer would be sad. Pre-emptive attacks are not justified unless there is an imminent threat. Like the Egyptians getting ready to invade through the Sinai. Or even perhaps the provisioning with military supplies of a harbor outpost overlooking an enemy port. Or finding a group of people who have organized a plot to run planes into buildings.

*

Furthermore, developing nuclear weapons is not illegal, unless of course the country has signed and ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, like Iran.

*

The broadly sweeping language of the government's admission is tragic. It has already encouraged North Korea to claim that they have the capability to strike the US with a nuclear missile and also claim the power to launch a first strike. Oh for the good old days when mutually assured destruction made people think, "well I don't want to die to kill them" rather than "today is a good day to die." What's with all the saber rattling? Everyone already knows we can launch a first strike. I mean we are the only ones who have ever dropped the bomb anyway.

*

Of course, there is a silver lining to the announcement. Reading the statement strictly, the US should immediately launch a full scale military action against itself. "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw the United States forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. "

*

And presumably, the government's endorsement of pre-emptive strikes is the recognition of a right guaranteed to the people of the United States through our elected representatives, and not just a right guaranteed to our elected representatives against us.

Opiate of the masses...

A friend writes that I see no point in religion. And so I'll consider it. The answer varies greatly depending on who we apply it to.

Most of my friends are religious. Almost everyone I know was raised in a religious tradition except me. I got comparative religion. I thought I was raised agnostic until I went back and looked at flashcards that my parents made for me when I was little that helped me learn about churches and temples and crosses and stars. We always celebrated Christmas and Easter. I knew Christmas was Christ's birthday, but I don't remember ever learning about the religious significance of Easter until I was grown. I also remember spinning the dradle from time to time. I do remember having discussions with one of my parents about religion and was told, believe whatever you will. My other parent is areligious, if that is a word. I don't think he really considers whether god does or doesn't exist or whether he doesn't know whether god exists, so I don't think you can consider him religious or an atheist or agnostic.

Add to that growing up in a medium sized city in the Midwest that wanted to be a small town. Lots of people were very religious. I was a little kid and when some of my neighbors found out my family didn't go to church, probably because they asked me and I told them we didn't, they promptly told me I was going to burn in hell. I'm not exactly sure when they explained to me what burning in hell was, but once I found out, I was pretty devastated. And no one told me that I could save my soul by going to church, they just told me I was dammed. A few years later I remember collecting canned goods for the pantry that my mom ran and getting turned away after I was quizzed about what church I attended. Then I went to Catholic High School.

There I learned about the fights between Catholics and Protestants. I still chuckle about that from time to time. I find it so hard to distinguish between the two, and Judaism for that matter that I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Well I was a fairly good kid in High School and even led Our Father over the PA on numerous occasions, because I used to do impressions during announcements. Around the time of graduation I learned that several of the parents of some of my friends had been told that I was a bad influence, with respect to sex, smoking and drinking. Only it was my friends who did that and not me. Conveniently enough, because I was not Christian, and would have admitted that if asked, the parents bought into to the little myth.

*

Toward the end of High School I read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica entry on every religion and religious philosophy I could find, including animism, deism, polytheism, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism, and monotheism. I also had a pretty good working knowledge of history at the time. At the Catholic college I attended I also studied comparative religions.

*

But enough history.

*

Religion is fine for other people. Sure I'll box your ears if you want to talk to me about transubstantiation or the red heifer, but if you at least can articulate a position about those, then more power to you. Does it have a point? I guess. It helps people cope, or feel not alone or helps them have some purpose, or in the worst cases keeps them from being totally evil. For a lot of people it colors the emptiness of the space of things they do not know, or in the worst cases do not care to know.

*

But zealots? I don't much care for them. Too many wars, too many conversions by genocide, too many other bad things to mention. And amazingly these people have no concept of either (1) the things that their religion has perpetrated or (2) the theistic or historic underpinnings of their religion. So they are stupid or evil, and they will get an earful from me.

*

As for me, I am fine without answers. My religion changes to suit my mood. And that's how I work. Anything with dogma rubs me the wrong way, and as I stated in my first post, monotheism is not for me.

*

So does it have a point? Again my friend says, that Marx's statement seems to be conflicted. He liked the masses, thought that opium was bad, but in a way opium means something more. Webster's second definition of an opiate is "something that induces rest or inaction or quiets uneasiness" and that can't always be a bad thing.

Viewing

Saw V for Vendetta last night. Interesting. Until I heard that the movie was about the nature of terrorism, I didn't really have any interest. And once I found out the movie was based on an Alan Moore graphic novel I was really hooked. Although I admit I've never read V and didn't even really read all of Watchmen, but The Dark Knight Returns (by Frank Miller) both renewed my interest and changed my mind about what comic books could be. And then came Alex Ross.

*

The problem is one I recognize from the Nazi seizure of Power, if you have a you're with us or you're against us mentality, and you keep adding to the behavior that is necessary to be "with us" then you have started down the road to a totalitarian state. It is precisely for this reason that I am concerned when even though the government recognizes that a call for censure from Sen. Feingold is doomed to failure, they continue to pay lip service to their supposition that sowing discord in this time of war gives aid an comfort to the enemy. Clearly Sen. Feingold is a treasonous traitor who hates our president and our country and is out to destroy it, right? So the question to me becomes, once you have decided, you are "against us" what then are your options?

St. Patrick's Day

What a holiday. And unlike Valentine's day, we have retained the Saint. It was Patrick who drove the snakes out of Ireland. I'd kind of like to see the snakes back in Ireland myself. Maybe they would give the Catholics and Protestants someone else to direct their anger against.

I used to imagine that St. Patrick's day was a great day to partake in good English food, wear orange and St. George's cross. But I guess my beef against the holiday doesn't have anything to do with English or Irish or Catholic or Protestant. I actually kind of like the Ireland, the Irish and Irish culture. Plus I try to shy away from doing things that will get me beat to the point of unconsiousness. As with all holidays, I like the etymology. The green god, the leprechauns, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Not being Catholic or Irish, and not drinking, I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm supposed to do today. But I will wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's day.

Deep Thoughts

I have been posting quite a bit in response to Deep Thoughts, at various places in the archives. Mostly here, here and here. And while I totally disagree with him on several issues, he is well intentioned and clearly more learned with regard to Aristotelian philosophy, which in fact I know next to nothing about, or really any philosphy for that matter, other than what I've been able to piece together in my free time without reading any philosophy books. So if you are one of the three or four people who ocassionally read my posts and want to read posts on life the universe or everything, read two people argue or throw in your opinion, please feel free to do so.

Stokely Carmichael

Stokely Carmichael was a leader of SNCC and the Black Panther Party. He was an interesting guy. I only had the chance to talk to him briefly, and by the time I met him he had changed his name to Kwame Ture and was advocating for a Communist Pan-African movement.

I got the chance to meet him in the concrete block basement of a building that is now a dorm for seminarians. He was an imposing presence, and to me a man who seemed to straddle two eras. He talked about justice. I remember a few other white faces in the small group, but we were in the minority. I was shocked at the lack of people present and at the intimacy of his speech. I was only partially surprised that many of my friends had no interest in going to see him speak even after I explained who he was. Aside from the fact that I don't think he was turning cartwheels about a prolonged conversation with a white college boy, he seemed like a good man. Very political. He was pleased to hear I had learned his name along with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X as three of the prominant black leaders of the 1960s.

The other night, a friend gave me a car ride home from work. He had met Mr. Carmichael too, and I suspect had several conversations with him. He also knew Bill Ayers. Where have all the radicals gone?

Meme

And today I punt. But for fun I will try a meme.

Lifted from SNL.

1. What was the biggest mistake I ever made?
Not trying hard enough.

2. What career was I really suited for?
Muppeteer.

3. Which of the girls I knew secretly had a crush on me?
None of them. The few girls who had a crush on me let me know about it.

4. Whats the 200th grossest thing I ever ate?
I don't kiss and tell.

5. Secretariat or Man-O-War?
Man-O-War.

6. Bent-knee or straight-knee sit ups?
Sit ups? Neither.

7. Beatles or Stones?
Beatles. Not even close.

8. Dogs or cats?
Dogs. Dog sized-dogs. I hate cat-sized dogs.

9. Smooth or chunky?
Smooth. Natural.

10. Irresistable force or immovable object?
Anything irresistable. Preferably in a pleasing shape. Damn you succubi.

11. Who is still alive? Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hoffa, Andy Kaufman, or Hitler?
Andy Kaufman. But he is dead to me.

12. Did Bruce Willis make a deal with the devil?
Yes, but the devil apparently isn't interested in renewing the deal.

13. Sugar Ray Leonard?
No.

14. 368th most surprising truth?
The holy grail is in a pawn shop in Hoboken, NJ.

15. What's the wierdest thing that causes cancer?
Sepp Dietrich.

16. Why did they change the formula for Coke?
The freemasons.

17. What happened to the $50 bill I lost at graduation?
It went to pay down the national debt.

18. Does god have a favorite religion?
Mithraism. I'm so sorry.

Oriflamme

Webster's defines Oriflamme as a banner or symbol inspiring devotion or courage. It is originally from the Latin for golden flame. The oriflamme was the war banner of the French kings. By the time the original flag was replaced by the banner of St. Denis, the banner was made of fiery red silk. The flag was raised in times of war. It was the rallying point in times of great danger.

*

Wikipedia notes that the red flag is linked with Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, the revolutionary left and the radical left. The red flag is a symbol of incitement. It was also used by pirates (before global warming) to indicate they would take no quarter.

*

I'm no communist (not yet anyway), but I've given up on the Democrats. I was always much more hawkish than most of the Democrtic party anyway. And if this administration, which seems unconcerned with the checks and balances of the constitution, has given me one thing, it is a new found appreciation for the Second Amendment.

Pretrial

It's strange. Last week I got to sit in a room and hear a bunch of people talk about how they thought they were going to die. Then I got to ask them questions. Such a strange job some days. But my questions were clinical, precise, I hope. Aimed at discovering the truth rather than merely bludgening the questionee.

I understand that some of them prayed in what they thought were their last moments. I would love to have a conversation with them in a different setting, although I don't know that it would do either of us any good. That idea seems so foreign to me. I can't imagine praying at the end. Maybe I'm wrong about myself, or everything, but I can't. Some of those who pray don't make it. Some do. Some of those who avoid praying have time to take action to save themselves. Some don't.

I remember Pascal's gambit. If no God exists, then belief or disbelief are of little consequence. If God exists, then you are better off believing than not. And yet if I prayed to Tyr or Hermes or Shiva I assume I would be roundly condemned as a heretic. And if I believed and prayed for others to be destroyed, then what would I be?

Amalekites

Proof that life is stranger than fiction. Or. Putting the Nazi in Ashkenazi.

Did you know Jews are commanded by the bible to genocidally wipe out the Amalekites? "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Sam. 15:3). Now the good news is that most rabbis will tell you that the Amalekites are dead, or at least that there is no way of knowing anymore. (I consulted with a Cohen on this one).

How strange is that? I mean the people who have been subjected to the most orchestrated genocidal campaign in modern history (you're not in an Austrian prison, right?), being commanded to commit genocide themselves. It certainly makes you question the moral authority of the text.

From Each According to Their Ability...

Capitalism and technology working together to create a more communist society.

One of the first lessons you learn in economics is the law of supply and demand. Theoretically, you want to reach equilibrium between supply and demand. Unfortunately, doing so means you lose a potential market above the point of equilibrium, which would have paid more for your item, and you lose a potential market below the point of equilibrium, which cannot pay the asking price for your item. Of course, you do get to sell the optimum number of units at the optimum price.

The market has come up with some nice ways to try and retake these markets. Let's take an example - the movie Star Wars. Say for example, you wanted to see the movie before its general release date. You could have driven to a large city and paid a couple hundred to attend a special charity screening. That's the market above the point of equilibrium. Now lets say you don't have $10 to spend on the movie for you and your friends or family. You can wait until the movie comes out at a discount theatre, wait and rent it from the store, or if free works for you, wait until the television premiere. That captures the market below the point of equilibrium. Still, most people who actually want to see the movie are going to pay the $10 and see it.

Now the internet has come up with a genius way to handle supply and demand based on the information available about you! It's like capitalism meets communism. By keeping track of you on the internet a company can get a fairly good idea of your household income. It can then charge you according to your income for items you wish to purchase. Theoretically at least this same method could be used in a brick and mortar store. I know a lot of people were really pissed off when they found out a couple of companies online were using a sliding scale, but under laissez-faire capitalism I'm not sure what's so bad about it. It you want to pay less money you can always earn less money.

I can just envision Adam Smith and Karl Marx rolling over in their graves.

Polked, Pierced, and finally Bush.

This is Franklin Pierce. He was President of the United States. He was born in New England. He was a northerner with southern sympathies. His excellent policy decisions helped bring about the Civil War. After he left office he drank himself to death.

Does he look familiar? He is an ancestor of our illustrious leader, Dubya. Did you know George Bush was born in Connecticut?

I guess it is a slight improvement to have started the Civil War in another country. But who knows. If the next president is Pat Buchanan, I'm going to get really nervous.

I can't figure out what he is reaching into his jacket for. Enlighten me.

Anniversary

I love my wife.

When the chips are down there is no one else who I would rather have in my corner. As time stretches out in front of us there is no one more fun to just ride it out with. And when things are good, we both know to keep our mouths shut and enjoy it.

I love her populism, and her perspective. She reads about five times as many books as I do and retains practical knowledge. When I talk about how people want to exercise their rights, she reminds me that they need to put food in their mouth. She is self made. She knows how to work and do things, in addition to just talking about them. Practicality still eludes me, sometimes.

Because I had so much help along the way I can only admire her accomplishments, and never equal them.

And she has built a home. I don't think there is anything more important to me than that. I think it's the one traditional value I hold dearest.

And she's hot.

I love my wife.

God of War

One facet of the War in Iraq I find brilliant.

"So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

Originally, I think the idea was supposedly premised on the misguided notion that the Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. Only they weren't in Iraq. At least not in any great numbers. While I'm sure Saddam was happy to throw them a bone once in a while, he was running a secular state. He and fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations didn't exactly see eye to eye. And we knew this.

Now we have admitted that since the war started, all kinds of terrorist organizations have begun to concentrate in Iraq with the goal of destroying the US presence there. And I think that was one of the considerations in going to war. Present a remote site where Islamic zealots could attack the US without actually attacking the US or putting American civilians in harms way.

It's a brilliant idea. It has been as much as articulated by the president and other government spokespeople. I thinks it's a bit immoral though. Let's use someone else's country as the outhouse. Let's put a generation of young American in harm's way. And perhaps over time we will discover that we made terrorists as fast as we could kill them.

Ave Maria

Naples, Florida (Red Press) -- Domino's Pizza founder Thomas S. Monaghan is in the midst of the rapture. He is undertaking a project to build a true Christian community in the United States, the first of its kind since the end of the witch trials in Salem. And likewise in this community, men will be discouraged from leaving property to women. He plans to spend upwards of $250 million on the project which he calls "God's advanced directive."

Civil libertarians are protesting the project, largely because Monaghan refuses to allow for the free flow of sex and drugs in the community. In a bold move to satisfy liberal slackers, each welcome wagon packet comes with a PS2 video game based on the popular "Left Behind" Christian book series, and the promise that Domino's pizzas can be delivered in 20 instead of the usual 30 minutes.

Monaghan notes that pharmacies will not carry condoms or birth control pills and that abortions will not be allowed. Catholics in the community are expected to adhere strictly to a policy of no sex before marriage. The lack of birth control pills and condoms are not expected to cause a problem in the town as adult women are expected to be divided largely into two groups. Prostitutes and mothers by virgin birth.

Periodic checks for non-Christian contraband will be conducted by the local constables. Regular churchgoers will be warned ahead of these searches, during services, to smear pizza sauce above their doors in order to prevent their houses from being targeted.

Men in the town will be given the opportunity to experience the life of Christ first-hand. They will attend Synagogue and learn the lucrative trade of carpentry. As young men, they are expected to begin taking a more active role in the church and to largely renounce all of their worldly possessions. Renounced possessions will be returned to Monaghan.

Jubilee years will be celebrated on a regular basis, with all debts, other than those to Domino's pizza, being subject to a potential interest rate reduction of one tenth of one percent.

Sometime in their early thirties, each male townsman will receive a chain letter asking him to betray one of his friends, in exchange for a suitcase full of small, unmarked bills and a short length of gold braid rope.

Two of Monaghan's major competitors, Miriam and Michael Ilitch, owners of Little Ceasar's Pizza have announced a plan to start buying property in an adjacent county in Florida where with the help of some high tech Florida pre-fab manufacturers, they are expected to build a town in a day.

It Takes a Village

So there I was, in a village meeting with the commissioners. We were all discussing how to revitalize a strip of mixed use residential and commercial land in our town. I am new to the commission.

"We have a great plan. There was a rape on this parcel several years ago and no one goes there any more." [It is too close to a black part of town]. "The community wants to revitalize the business district." [It is used by too many poor blacks]. "We want something that reflects the needs and desires of the community." [Where white people and the middle class blacks we like can shop]. "We need to make the area safe again." [Maybe by removing some of the black faces].

I tried to speak up, it was just hard to know what to say. I immediately raised the subtextual issues.

The response:

"I don't think this plan was driven by issues of race, but rather by economic issues."

Too smart by half? The economic issue is the poor black people. I am no master of statistics or the most recent census. I bet you could tell me that most poor people aren't black and be right. After all they make up a small part of the overall population. Did you know that many of the housing projects were originally brimming with poor whites? But I'd bet that a disproportionate number of black people are poor. And I know that a dispropotionate number are in prison. Economics is a wonderful way to discriminate on the basis of race without discriminating on the basis of race.

We aren't against black people, we just want more income diversity. If the diversity leads to less black people, how were we to know? We just don't want any kind of aggregation of poverty. That's different than saying we don't want blacks. (Several of the letters are different). Same thing really, but we said it in a much nicer way.

The plan we had may be the best one, I have no idea.

The lying makes me uncomfortable.

March Forth!

Today is another day in the war against international terrorism. But it is not just a war against international terrorism, it is a war against all who wish to do evil to us. Or rather it is a war against evil. And it will be a long war. How about forever? Does forever work for you?

War is peace.

I haven't even won the battle against evil in myself. I don't see how we can win a war against it. Actually, I do, but it involves all of us being lobotomized or worse. I have to believe evil is with us to stay folks. On what basis would we have good without evil? How could we recognize it or distinguish it? It's just part of human nature.

While not considering myself a bad person, evil is just alright with me. I can't believe a war against evil is anything more than a poorly disguised attempt to exercise control over our society in a way that I'm not comfortable with. We must be ever vigilant. Evil could be anywhere. In our airports, in Iraq, on our bus, in our town, next door, in our own spouse. Trust no one. Do what you must. When the scope of the war expands from the people who detonated bombs to all who have the wish to do ill in their hearts, then we are the enemy.

Mindaugas

This is Mindaugas. He was the last pagan king in Europe. He was baptized but later renounced Christianity. That's hot.

Here's something I don't understand. I know that technically Protestantism holds that faith alone guarantees entry into the kingdom of heaven. Then people fall into a few different groups. There are those who perform good deeds who were always predestined to go into heaven. The righteousness of their souls shows through. There are those who perform good deeds who are not predestined to go into heaven. Hard luck stories. And there are those who are evil. I doubt you can find many Protestants who would say that some of the evil people are going to heaven anyway, and are just funning it up in their time on earth. (But the prospect is titillating).

Now Catholics generally hold that some combination of faith and deeds is necessary. It's kind of an improvement but here is what troubles me.

I think that living your life for some treat at the end really reduces people to dogs. I mean its a great technique to write into a book to get people to behave, but isn't it a morally higher position to live live compassionately and promote good deeds without any prospect of reward? Or in fact believing that they are their own reward? If the only reason you do good deeds is because you want to be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven, I would argue that you haven't quite shaken the deadly sins. Now I recognize that some of the best Christians do good deeds for the doing of them alone. This is a wonderful thing. But something about believing in the "happy ending" rubs me the wrong way. It seems to demote your time on earth, which is all we really have empirical evidence for, to second class.

What say you Mindaugas?

Godless Liberal

Sure you read about me in the media. But I'm not sure you really know me.

Quoth Pete Seeger "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other." So maybe I'm not really liberal after all.

Got an email the other day from the boss. A little parable about the liberal girl who studied hard and got a 4.0. Her friend partied and got a 2.0. When she started lecturing daddy that the division of wealth should be more equitable, he said, "why don't you give her a point off your GPA so the distribution is more equitable?" Aghast (apparently), she said "I worked hard for those grades and my friend goofed around, we both deserve our grades and that's not fair." Her daddy said, congratulations you are now a Republican.

Imagine another scenario. This time daughter says "I have been drunk most of the semester but some of it has been while partying with my English teacher. I have managed to get straight A's. My friend on the other hand has been studying 24/7, but hasn't managed to get anything better than a C. She's bright and knows the material, but a lot of her questioning of the professors during class has soured them." This time daddy says, "That's fair enough honey, you're a beautiful girl and deserve good things. And I'm leaving your mother to be with your friend, so she will be provided for nonetheless."

The story is flawed. It is premised on a notion of fairness which does not exist either in capitalism or in communism. The premise that effort is rewarded equitably is flawed. The "market" does not operate perfectly, mostly because human beings are one of the variables. Maybe her friend has a job lined up with a relative's Fortune 500 corporation and doesn't need a degree. Maybe she is going to make more money as an artist. Maybe she is going to start her own company and make millions. No matter your preference for how wealth is distributed, it is not distributed fairly. I can't see how people who revere the wealthy for their enterprise are any different than people who condemn the poor for their sloth.

Now the no income taxes thing does present some interesting possibilities. Without income tax, or without any tax for that matter, presumably there would be fewer or no prisons. At least this would allow for the more direct and facile redistribution of wealth. I just am not up for the mass death aspect, which gets me to my next point.

I'm not sure I'm really godless either. I am just philosophically opposed to monotheism. Why? Monotheists are binary. They view the world in black and white. God and salvation or reject god and damnation. Such thinking justifies forcible conversion to "save" the non-believer or even death to the non-believer. The two major religions of the world are starting to polarize today. If history is cyclical, to jump off Seeger's quote, it appears that we are turning the clock back to the crusades. Can't the Christian desire to kill heathens be exhausted? Can't the Muslim trend of killing infidels end? Will Christians and Muslims ever stop killing the Jews on the way to kill Muslims and Christians? Somehow I have memories of halcyon days when the order of the day was helping the poor and downtrodden. And without converting them. What happened to those people? Now it seems like we are more interested in dividing into armed camps. Then we can make kids pray in schools, make women vessels for god's will, and force those who deny god into the shadow of the valley of death.

I think after Tony Dungy's son died someone said he had his priorities in order. Faith, family football. My first thought was that that order has to be wrong. Would you kill your firstborn son or stop associating with your family if they didn't hold your faith? To me that seems wrong. Now as much as I love football, If the lord Jesus asked me to stop watching, I'd at least kick it around. Jesus is afterall Lord over my hometown. At least according to the billboards.

A, B, C. Abstinence, be faithful and condoms. Good Christians leave off the C, but hold that the first two will prevent the spread of STDs. True, but so will a group of 10 sober virgins promising and upholding just to have orgies together forever. Since the church has historically been against sex for anything but procreation (Song of Solomon notwithstanding) and holds celibacy in the highest regard I suggest that Christians remain celibate both before and after marriage. This would bring them closer to god, and perhaps have the beneficial effect of reducing the overall population.