Springtime for Winter (and Canada)

You know that part of The Producers (and I'm referencing the original, Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder version) when the opening sequence of "Springtime for Hitler" starts? And the audience sits there, staring, slackjawed, as the parade of grotesque stereotypes of German "culture" are paraded past?

Well, that was my impression of the Olympic closing ceremonies.

They're not called, "Friendly, Snuggly Whales"

Click here for untitled

Just what part of "killer" in "killer whale" do people fail to grasp?

Yes, other cultures call them things like "orcas," but someone at some point thought of calling them, not "spotted whales," not "cow whales," "Oreo whales" or even "penguin whales," but saw sufficient reason to give them the name, "killer."

I just heard that this is the third time this particular whale was involved in a human death.

Now, I would not advocate that any particular intelligent mammal's life is more sacred than any other, nor would I necessarily mock the death of an intelligent mammal (or its trainer), but at some point you have to recognize the natural order of things.

Roy Horn and I both have cats in our homes. The difference is, I'm not terribly worried if mine is having a bad day. Something with sharp teeth doesn't have to be much bigger than a cat for me to keep my distance. Bigger than me with sharp teeth? I'm staying over here.

Some people believe they've got a sacred book that gives them dominion over all life on this planet. Most of the other life on this planet hasn't read that book--they're watching YouTube clips of "When Animals Attack."

Best. Gay Marriage. Quote. Evar.

"One woman and one man might have been OK in your grandmother's day,
but who wants to marry your grandmother? Not even your grandfather!"

Groucho Marx in Animal Crackers

Oh, the Terror(ism)!

What follows is a reply to another blog post here. This reply was posted in the comments.
----------

Should we argue semantics? Get all hung up on the "true" meanings of words? Yes. It's why we have them.

It's why Charles Manson was a mass-murderer. Son of Sam a serial killer. Why guys who get tired of delivering the mail "go postal."

We have so many words to describe things, you really need to look at why.

There are definitely double standards, which I think was the point of this post.

When the Ft. Hood shootings happened, when it became public knowledge that the shooter's last name was Hassan, immediately the media was filled with "was this an act of terrorism?" His shouting, "glory to god" (I believe the translation of Allah Akbar) didn't help matters.

Did anyone call the VA Tech shooter a terrorist? He wasn't white. I'm pretty sure he wasn't born here, either.

There have been other school shootings, since Columbine, and since 9-11 - they are sadly almost cliche. How many of them were labeled "terrorism?"

I'll also point out that when that small private plane crashed into an apartment building in Manhattan (it killed a baseball player - I'm too lazy to look up details), "terrorism" was the initial, unqualified, panicked response, as people there are still a bit edgy about planes flying into buildings. (turned out someone just fucked up)

People who protested the last presidential administration were labeled "terrorists," or at the very least terrorist sympathizers. What terror did they instill - in anyone other than elected officials?

The riots in LA after the Rodney King verdict - terrorism? Or rioting?

We have violence. We have crime. We have violent crime. We also, now, have legally defined "hate crimes." Beating up someone for being gay - terrorism? I know for a fact a lot of homosexuals who might otherwise come out to their communities don't for fear of physical assault, among other things. They live in constant fear.

All bigots are terrorists? The KKK certainly did a lot to instill fear in black communities. There are, sadly, very many white-supremacist groups. They are organized. They have a political and social agenda. They use violence and fear of more violence to convey their message. Perhaps their time has come to be labeled appropriately?

Violence directed (rightly or no) against a government office - terrorism? With what message? "We're going to resist paying more taxes!" or was it, "I'm destroying everything and I'm taking you with me!"

At risk of going off on a tangent, do I think taxes are fair? The way they're currently levied, no. The tax burden is ridiculously upside down in this country. But I do believe in taxation. We all live in a community, a society, and derive a benefit from that, and we all need to contribute to that to make it work for all of us. I like roads. I like schools. I like police and fire departments. I believe those who derive the largest benefit should contribute the largest amount. That would be the corporations that have judicial and legislative systems that create and enforce laws for their benefit.

The clerk, who wanted a secure job with a pension, checking to see if your returns were filled out properly, is not evil incarnate (typically) and does not deserve to be murdered.

If you attend an organized protest of the wars in Afghanistan, you can, under the PATRIOT act, be grabbed up off the street, held as an "enemy combatant," without bail, without advice of an attorney, subjected to "enhanced interrogation" such as water boarding, even though you're a US citizen, all without being charged with anything other than being a suspected "terrorist."

A guy flying a plane into an IRS building in a fit of destructive, violent, homicidal rage? I wouldn't be too quick to apply the term "terrorist" to him. Throwing labels around like that and some of them might bounce back and stick.

Walmart's raping of the disadvantaged continues

For those of you who haven't seen the TV ads yet (which curiously show a nebulously interracial couple), Walmart is getting into the check cashing business.

Don't have check cashing establishments around your home? You probably live in an area that's doing OK. They're a staple of neighborhoods that aren't doing so well, financially, along with stores that sell liquor, menthol cigarettes and cheap comestibles barely deserving the term "food."

If you have a check that's made out to you, say, your paycheck, they'll cash it--for a fee. Seems reasonable enough. Walmart offers a "discount" service of "only" $3 for a check up to $1000; $6 for checks up to $5000.

But why would you need to cash it? Why couldn't you just deposit it into your bank account? Banks cash checks for free--assuming you've got cash in your account to cover it. Assuming you've got a bank account.

It's yet another instance of being charged a fee for not having enough money.

Most banks expect a minimum deposit--they charge fees if you fall below the minimum. If those fees are higher than the $3/check, or up to $12/month (or more) Walmart is charging, then saving money means, well, not saving your money.

Not that saving your money is Walmart's aim--the ad shows you all the things you can buy, like mp3 players and computers, presumingly from them, with the "up to $200 per year" you could "save."

And who are these people, the ones who cannot afford to stockpile even one paycheck in a bank? I was one of them. Not for financial reasons, though--I didn't have any ID--I couldn't prove, to the satisfaction of a bank, who I was. Curiously, the rules at the check cashing stores were different. Mediocre, even questionable identification was sufficient to turn a check into cash, but insufficient for saving it in your own name.

These are also Walmart's own employees, most of whom are part-time, at their management's preference.

Assuming a biweekly paycheck at double minimum wage, full-time, after taxes you're still likely to come in under the $1,000 check to meet the $3 price. To restate that, after two weeks of full-time work, you're taking home less than $1000, which is a crime in itself. After 26 paychecks, throw in your tax refund check and you're paying $85. If you work for Walmart, that's paying your money back to your employer for the privilege of them paying you.

That's assuming you don't get an employee discount.

Father/Son Valentines are just Icky

OK, first, let's dispense with the tired stereotype of the absent-minded, romantically clueless male, running to the card shop at the last minute to load up on armfulls of roses and chocolates and find that perfect paper sentiment that expresses his undying love in a way he never could. Or diamonds, when he comes to understand that isn't enough. Shall we? There were two other people buying cards with me today, and neither of them were male.

I'd rather not buy into the whole, "if you love me, you'll cut down those living flowers so I can watch them die in front of me, then I want you to exploit children and poor people at the behest of an African warlord so I can have a rare, shiny rock, and make sure you purchase someone else's measured sentiments from the industry responsible for making you feel worthless for not participating," thing.

The chocolates are tasty, though.

I have memories of being in grammar school, and cutting and gluing the same manufactured sentiments for my classmates they were compositing for me. Many of the 3-4-year-olds in my son's class worked on similar sentiments. Admittedly, there's a big, "aww" moment when your preschooler throws his arms out and yells, "happy valentime's [sic] day!"

Call me a purist, but the purpose of the day honoring St. Valentine is to celebrate romantic love. Not, "I love you, man," love. I'm not any more comfortable with my 3-yr-old son expressing romantic feelings for the girls in his preschool than for the boys. It's just not appropriate.

I love my family. I love my son. My wife gets Valentine's Day cards.

Yeah, I know a lot of people use the occasion to express their, shall we say, less romantic feelings for the people close to them. But I'm not eager to meet the father who's expecting the, "Be my Valentine, Dad" card that I saw today from his son.

a parent's worst nightmare

From Australia, but it happens here (US) with frightening regularity

clipped from www.dadsontheair.net Department of Child Stealing a distraught father who has spent the past 13 years desperately trying to have his son returned to his care and protection, following the boys’ removal from his parents’ care on the bases of allegations of abuse and neglect, which were subsequently proven to be false. Again our own investigations show the frightening speed and ease by which your biological children can be removed from your care, by any of these government agencies on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, unsupported hearsay or vindictive false allegations. the governments’ own reports show that tens of thousands of the nation’s children are removed from one or more of their parents every year with the help of a number of government agencies More questions urgently need to be asked in order to establish the possible underlying causes for such a disturbing high level of government involvement in the child stealing racket that appears to be taking place.

Beaten Census

though technically (barely) legal, it's intentionally deceptive. What's your opinion of intentionally deceptive fund raisers?

Would you give them money, even if you agree in principle, when you know they're disingenuous?

What's your opinion of the people who are intentionally deceptive to get your money? Are they likely to be deceitful in other areas?

clipped from www.politico.com RNC 'census' mailer draws fire Calling itself the “Congressional District Census,” the letter comes in an envelope starkly printed with the words, “DO NOT DESTROY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT” and describes itself, on the outside of the envelope, as a “census document.” Even some who have been involved with the program, however, acknowledged that it walks the line. "Of course, duping people is the point. ... That's one of the reasons why it works so well,” said one Republican operative familiar with the program, who said it’s among the RNC’s most lucrative fundraising initiatives. “They will likely mail millions this year [with] incredible targeting.” the same mailing in 2000, during that year’s census, and Maloney and Clay asked the postmaster general to open an investigation into whether the mailings violate the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act

Blowhard Christian Soldiers

The only "social responsibility" of a Christian is to live, wherever and with whomever he may be, the life of faith, for his own salvation and as an example to others. If, in so doing, we help to ameliorate or abolish a social evil, that is a good thing - but that is not our goal. If we become desperate when our life and our words fail to convert others to the true Kingdom, that comes from lack of faith. If we would live our faith more deeply, we would need to speak of it less.

Bl. Seraphim Rose

From Letters from Father Seraphim, Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, Richfield Springs, NY, 2001. A letter to Thomas Merton. (via my friend Huw)

It occurred to me how ironic it was that political candidates were able to garner millions of dollars in contributions, but we can't seem to find the money to help the truly needy. The irony was the candidates who claim to represent "Christian values" with $400 hair cuts.

I was thinking about how one church could raise over $300,000 in collections from its members in order to sponsor legislation that would deny the same rights they enjoy from couples for being of the same gender.

I was thinking about how that same, Christian, enthusiasm could have feed, clothed and housed more than a few people.

I was also questioning how many Christian ideals are being expressed in response to the recent disaster in Haiti.

I then wonder how many who would call themselves Christian are against providing health care to those who cannot afford it. Not only do they not want to see anyone else "enriched" from their, Christian labor, they fear health care in too short supply to risk sharing it with others, lest they not get what is theirs.

I cannot hold fault with Christianity as a faith for the way some choose to practice it. That's the same as hating a football team because of the actions of some of its fans. (Which some seem to have to quarrel with.)

The message I get from Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, is forgive everyone; love everyone, even your enemies; have compassion for every one and every thing and help everyone when you can. But then I'm not a Biblical scholar. I've not even read the Bible. I still think I have a better understanding of Yeshua of Nazareth's teachings than most who claim to have a personal relationship with him. It makes me think they've not read any more of the book than I have.