Ginger@Large

Merry Chri$tma$

2011-11-22T07:19:00.000-08:00

As we hurtle once again toward another holiday season, it's time to prepare for certain holiday "traditions" courtesy of our modern society. One of my personal favorites is being reminded again about that recognition of any other holiday but Christmas sparks some sort of theoretical "war on Christmas." Blood pressures will raise, righteous indignation will flex and in the end it will all amount to the same thing it does every year - much to do about nothing.

Two, we're going to see a glut of advertising that promises you can fill the space under your tree with every gift your loved ones desire for a lot less of your hard-earned dough. Even though politicians will tell you how broken our economy is and how the current administration is stifling job growth and jeopardizing the very foundation of our capitalist democracy, Christmas advertising is already in full swing to offer those once-in-a-lifetime deals you just won't be able to live without.

We're in crisis, we're broke, but go shop.

If both of these things are true, and hey they must be to be represented so strongly in the media, then we're being sold a big fat crap cake covered in sugary frosting. But somehow we buy it and gobble it up year after year without question because we've come to believe two very distinct things: it's American to celebrate Christmas (ChristianityTM), and it's American to shop till you drop (capitalism.)

Let the holidays begin!

I've been thinking about this recently and it occurs to me we've all been nationally and culturally hoodwinked. At the end of the day all these Black Friday bargains can really guarantee is that you will take time AWAY from your loved ones to embark on the odyssey of long lines, rude crowds and a scarcity of goods and gadgets that will be obsolete by Valentine's Day.

I finally put these two things together thanks to watching an eye-opening movie called The Story of Stuff, that talks about how our consumer glut is crushing the planet. Now when I see these happy, festive, bright and musical ads meant to part me from my money, I feel anything BUT the holiday spirit. WORSE... I find the manipulation to spend, spend, spend a far more insidious violation of Jesus than simply saying, "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas."

If, as the movie suggests, our consumer-driven society is a purposeful coercion by big business to ensure we as a culture remain in an endless, destructive cycle wasting our precious (and finite) resources, cheating our fellow man and identifying our value through our buying power, then Christmas stopped being about Christ decades ago.

Instead we need to call it what it really is... Chri$tma$.

Ironically enough nobody in the media bothered to whip all of us up into a frenzy about this consumer takeover of a religious holiday. Essentially we've been duped not to care because it's American to celebrate Christmas, and it's American to shop till you drop.

"It's the most wonderful time of the yeaaarrrrrr..."

Not so coincidentally it keeps getting worse every year to the point they're not even trying to hide it anymore. And this year it's become just plain stupid.

Each year the clock moves backward on when "Black Friday" should start to the point of absurdity. This is the most important day on the calendar for retail - so much so that it trumps any "holiday" it is supposed to help you celebrate. Consider that it is so named "Black Friday" because it's the one day of the year expected to bring stores back "into the black" (or make a profit.) It's about money - your money - and they want to wring as much out of you as they can get. Stores open earlier and earlier to "get a jump" on their competition in effort to attract your business. They create this illusion of urgency that works everyone up into a buying frenzy and takes the focus OFF the more minor holiday of Thanksgiving.

Despite its name, Thanksgiving has effectively ceased being about a moment of reflection, generosity and gratitude and instead turned into a consumer launch pad. After you load up on more food than you should ever eat (which keeps the grocery stores in business) the pistol fires and you're aimed directly at the mall. This advertising suggests whether subtly or outright that you aren't in the "spirit" if you aren't somehow spending your dwindling supply of cash like everyone else.

This adds that other ol' American tradition (competition) to the already combustible combo of ChristianityTM and capitalism. In other words...if you're not a part of this process, then you're just a big fat loser.

Think of the Target ad that features a crazed woman in a track suit (and fashionable high heels and pearls) who is literally in physical training to attack Black Friday with fervor the minute the doors open at... MIDNIGHT.

That's right. While we used to be able to spend those precious hours in the middle of the night sleeping off our tryptophan coma, now we're being encouraged and stirred up to hit the shops to get the very best deals of the season the very MINUTE Thanksgiving is done.

Remember the "good ol' days" when it used to be 7:00 a.m? I personally never went because it seemed an ungodly hour to me to get up and brave any kind of crowd, and no one wants to see me deprived of sleep and muscling for the latest video game.

I'd much rather pay the extra $5, $10, $20 or $50 than come up with bail money.

Apparently Target is hoping to tap into a new consumer base with these ridiculous new hours. Now they're catering to all those insomniacs who couldn't sleep anyway because their low paying jobs don't cover all their bills, so naturally they would get the most out of a Black Friday bargain that demands they spend, spend, spend or else they're just not worth a damn. These are the poor saps stuck on the endless, frustrating treadmill living off of stimulants like caffeine and sugar just to make it from one day to the next, who could use a lil' pick-me-up like the instant gratification of shopping.

It is, after all, their patriotic duty.

Of course, not to be outdone Walmart has opted to open their doors at 10:00 p.m. ON Thanksgiving.

That means these underpaid workers who bear the burden of the externalized cost of these Black Friday bargains must now take time away from their family so that you can take time away from your family to buy that thing for your kid he'll want you to replace within the year.

This is modern Chri$tma$ in America. Not quite the Norman Rockwell paintings from a few mere decades ago, is it?

"But Ginger... this is how the capitalist engine runs. They provide goods, we buy the goods that keep people working and the money flowing."

Really? Let's think about that a minute. Last I checked the money was flowing like gangbusters TOWARD the Walton family, who rank at the top of the wealthiest people in the country with a net worth in the BILLIONS (with a B.) That's great for them and all, but how did they amass that mind-boggling wealth - and, more importantly - what are they doing with it? Sure the Waltons are part of the top 1% and, technically, "job creators" for many, many Americans...but the jobs they create keep the majority of their workers living at or below the poverty line, which forces them to shop AT WALMART. So the money is flowing... but its flowing mostly in one direction.

Hint: It's away from you.

Obviously these folks never watched the capitalism message on Looney Tunes, which teaches that those who have must invest back into society for the benefit of all. You run a business, you get a profit. You put that profit back into your business, working with other businesses to expand so that you both can create jobs. The better jobs you create, the more money comes back into your business and the more society around you flourishes as a whole.

That means wealth in capitalism isn't a right, it's a responsibility. Hording profits for personal gain only benefits in one direction... and that's not capitalism. That's greed. Since we're talking about how capitalism marries with Christianity, let's consider that the Bible has a lot to say about greed and the love of money, not the least of which that it is impossible to serve two masters.

We'll pause slightly so you can put that together. That ding you just heard was the light bulb going off above your head.

The idea behind Walmart is to provide goods at the lowest prices so you can get the most out of your money. This sounds beneficial to the consumer, but let us consider the true cost of that "rollback" bargain. They outsource the manufacturing, which results in the negative impact of cheap industry on the environment. Moreover, and most importantly, they oppress a struggling job market with a glut of low paying jobs people are forced to take to survive as part of America's working poor. So Walmart amasses their personal fortune rather than invest it back into their workers and products, taking shortcuts to make even more money.

And now they want you to take time away from your family so you can give them more of your hard-earned cash.

Here's the kicker... we'll all do it. We all, literally, buy this flim-flam willingly and happily as part of the tried and true American Capitalist Competitive Christian tradition. We accept all this as part of the consequences of living in a capitalist society that puts our own personal wealth above the goodwill Jesus sought to bring to the world. It's the 800-pound gorilla in the room we never talk about because the fact is, we as humans like to keep our routines even if we know they aren't ideal, especially if it keeps our perceived sacrifices at a minimum. We literally buy into the lie that things aren't so bad if we can live like everyone else and have things like everyone else that we never bother to look behind the curtain to see who is really running the show. To do so would mean we'd have to take responsibility in OUR part of raping and pillaging the planet. This would introduce uncomfortable change on our part and we'd much rather live in denial.

In fact we're so afraid of change and fight it right up to the bitter end, when we're all toppling off the cliff one after the other like the sad little lemmings we are. This day is coming, my friends. And we'll only have ourselves to blame.

Right now the sacrifices belong to someone else and are easy to ignore. Sure some third world person is living off of $2 a day to manufacture our brand new high heels that will be out of fashion by spring but hey... at least he has a job. And working in a sweatshop builds character, especially when you're 10.

And here's the sad part. The things we're buying are designed SPECIFICALLY to become obsolete within six months so that you must trek BACK to the store to buy the next new thing at low cost, perpetuating this destructive system.

This is the dirty little secret of a consumer-driven society. Fat cat corporations purposefully design their goods to be as temporary as possible so that you have to keep coming back for more. In a country that uses way more than its share of resources, we are encouraged and TRAINED to dispose of these goods as quickly as possible. We've made this our way of life despite the fact it's completely unsustainable. This is a system that races toward its own extinction by taking more than it can possibly replace, especially when it comes to our natural resources. Yet the things we need (or to be more specific, want) get more and more disposable so that waste is encouraged. Whether a $50 pair of jeans or a $500 laptop computer, goods are designed to wear out, fall out of fashion or simply become obsolete within months of purchase.

Technology, especially, has made this extremely easy to pull off with consumer consent. What you stand in line for at midnight on "Black Friday" will be a thing of the past come NEXT year... or even next month. Yet somehow we'll all fall for it again when the next gadget does that one thing that our current gadget doesn't do.

Case in point: This past year I held a contest on my pop culture blog, giving away a brand new Kindle. I decided to spring for the high end model at a whopping $189 so I could get the most exposure for my blog, my books, etc. This made sense from a marketing standpoint.

I mean, I'm a capitalist too. I have goods to sell and I want to attract and keep my customers loyal by providing things they will enjoy and tell all their friends about so I can keep money flowing in my direction. I'm by no means at the level of the 1%, but like every good American I aspire to make it there one day, using nothing more than the talent God gave me and the sweat of my brow.

I also have to use some marketing sense, and in this case that meant offering a big prize to let my desired consumers - readers - know I exist and I have goods to offer them.

So I sprung for the $189 Kindle in May. Come November, for just $10 more, I could have purchased the Kindle Fire, Amazon's answer to the more expensive iPad.

Instead of being happy about the new technology I feel a bit cheated to tell you the truth. Even worse, my husband's Kindle (the $139 version) can fetch $70 at the pawn shop whereas a brand new model now runs about $79. This price drop occurred within a year after he purchased the original. That encourages that he dump the model he currently has, which has now become the less desirable gadget, to spend that money AGAIN to get the more desirable tablet.

This happens all the time with computers and cell phones - forcing people to replace them every year or two to keep better engaged in our equally communication-driven society.

So we're sold goods to keep us technologically advanced, but they're just disposable enough that we can keep the cycle going indefinitely within months after purchase. This increases waste AND demands we take more from our planet to manufacture the new, cooler, more desirable goods.

Think about that when you head to the mall on midnight Friday to buy that latest gadget you think you can't live without now.

The truth is you can live without it. The truth is you can strip away all the consumer brouhaha and still enjoy your holiday season and really, TRULY, put Christ back in Chri$tma$.

It's as simple as taking out the $$.

And technically you can skip the turkey and gorging yourself on so much food that you could - and probably should - feed a third world country this Thanksgiving. Though we disdain the obese in our nation, the sad fact is America is trained and encouraged to be gluttons on every level... it should be no real surprise when we see it in our bodies as well.

We are encouraged to get more, more more, or bigger, better, faster... whether or not it destroys us and our environment along the way. And the people who have created this system get away with it unfettered because they keep us distracted with non-issues like a Kardashian wedding, the Jersey Shore or some manufactured "War on Christmas"... all of which, on some level, result in profit along the line for SOMEbody.

Hint: It's still not you.

The only "war on Christmas" is the one that keeps you returning to the moneychangers in the temple, who are specifically and purposefully designed to distract you from seeking the true spiritual gifts of the holiday season: family togetherness, peace and goodwill to all and a relationship with God that comes before anything else, including your pocketbook.

These hold no value in a capitalist society because you can't put a price on it, though God bless their little hearts they sure do try.

If you really want Christ in your Christmas, the true gifts of the season can never be found in a store.

So stop looking.

If you really want to do something American AND Christian, find those smaller businesses who need your hard earned dollar far more than the Walton family. Instead of rushing out with the mad crowds to shop on Black Friday, participate instead in Small Business Saturday. Find those stores that are good stewards of the planet AND humanity, who use fair trade practices and don't destroy our world and society in the process to benefit their own personal bottom line. Sure you may pay a little more but you'll have a few gifts of true value rather than a stack of crap that is designed to break, wear out or become obsolete in a few months anyway.

You really do get what you pay for.

If you don't have a whole lot of money to spend, consider this a prime opportunity to learn how to get creative with your gifts this season. Ditch the bargain superstores and stop limiting yourself with things you can put in a box or wrap with a bow. You don't have to spend a lot of money for each person on your gift list. That you remember them should be gift enough. Bake cookies for your neighbor, share your time with long lost family you only see a few times a year. Make gifts with your kids to share the most important resource you have available to you - your TIME.

You may think you will make your kid's Chri$tma$ morning with that shiny new gadget or game, but it will be easily forgotten by next holiday season when the new gadget is even shinier and the newest game is even cooler. That's the essence of our disposable consumer mindset... what you have is never as good as what you can get next.

We are MEANT to forget it when the next thing comes along.

I guarantee you that in twenty years your kid won't remember the stockpile of stuff under the tree as much as he will remember the time you spent together. Think back to your own childhood and try to remember every single gift you ever got. Odds are there were really only a few that even stand out.

But if you really have to spend money at the mall, consider adopting a family or child who is less fortunate, whose breadwinners work long hours in big retail chains making big profits for their fat cat bosses but struggle each day to put food on their table.

These kids don't need a $500 iPad... sometimes all they need is a coat to keep them warm this season. Think of how much you teach your family about Jesus when you do what he commanded and look after the "least" of his people. (Matthew 25. Seriously. Commit it to memory.)

And while you're at it, if you just absolutely, positively need to buy a new phone or computer consider donating the old ones so that someone else can get some use out of it, like, say... a United States soldier or abused women.

There is a war on Christmas, folks. But it isn't the one you've been fooled to believe it is. It's one that has gone on for decades with your consent, one that you've bankrolled. So stop getting your knickers in a twist about courteous words said in passing to a stranger this holiday season. What we call it is way less important than what we DO with it. If you really want to put the "Christ back in Christmas" think about what that REALLY means. Stop worshipping at the altar of those thieves in the temple and turn your true focus to the homeless Jew who wandered the wilderness preaching charity, compassion and the true gift of peace on earth.

I guarantee you he won't be at Target at midnight.

Then neither should you be.

2nd Annual International Nice(r) Day - 09/11/11

2011-08-20T13:55:00.000-07:00

Last year we began a small movement that tried to replace division and hatred tied to the negative legacy of 9/11 with the understated power of kindness.

This year, let's do it again. Ten years after the tragedy that marred a country and scarred the hearts of Americans everywhere, it is a far more important memorial that we erect in honor of the fallen and the lost that says we have grown, evolved and matured as a country past the pain, the anger and the fear.

We've learned what is important, and how brief life can be, and we have learned to appreciate the living while they are here instead of waiting for another tragedy to remind us of that grit of which we are made.

Instead, we can be nice. Many of us are already nice, so this just gives us the opportunity to be nicer. And that alone can make the day of a complete stranger in ways we might not even realize.

When I first moved to California in 1989 I had an encounter in a grocery store that would change the way I thought about the little kindnesses. I was in line behind a lady who had forgotten something in the store, so she asked if I would hold her place. I said that I would but the line moved before she could get back. Instead of going ahead, I started to unload her basket onto the conveyor belt. It was a partially selfish gesture, to help keep things moving so I could get my items checked out and I could leave.

But when this elderly lady came back and saw what I had done for her she was so appreciative that I had helped her - it was like that kind of thing was a special event instead of a common occurrence. For me, it was no real effort on my part but it made her entire day.

This is the kind of thing we can all do more of all the time. It takes no real effort on our part to be nicer than people expect, and that niceness can often make someone else's day.

So this is my challenge to you. For one day, be nice(r) than you normally would. Honor your life and the lives of others around you with this pledge.

Join the love train. Again. :)

My Take on @RepWeiner & Weinergate. And Why I'm Not Upset.

2011-06-08T14:44:00.000-07:00

It should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog that I am a bleeding heart liberal significantly left of center. The politicians I support are the ones who have the figurative balls (or ovaries) to fight for the causes that are important to me. Representative Anthony Weiner from NY definitely has been at the top of my "favorites" list for a while now because of the way he didn't back down and in fact called out in very plain terms what I consider the general BS-titude of his (and my) opponents.

That was why when Weinergate began to, ahem, emerge in the recent days I was supremely disappointed by the apparent lack in judgment that would put him in such a vulnerable position where his opponents could literally catch him with his pants down.

But I wasn't outraged. I was pissed that he lied about it, because for once I'd like to see one of these politicians caught in these embarrassing or scandalous situations to just come right out and OWN their behavior rather than go through the typical "Wuddn't me" phase. Just once I'd like someone to harness the testicular fortitude of someone like Hugh Grant, who could just sheepishly say, "My bad."

Anthony Weiner had a reputation, at least for me, as one of the Left's biggest straight-shooters against typical right wing hypocrisy. Getting caught in a lie is the absolute worst thing that could happen to him, far worse than the whole cheating aspect.

So of all the behavior I found most troubling and most judgment worthy, it was the deceptive behavior and the lengths he went to in order to deny his more salacious behavior. This speaks more to his moral fiber than some sexual indiscretions because it is inconsistent with his character. It would have been far more in character for him to say, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Let's talk about the economy. Where are the jobs, m*therf*cker?"

(He's a New Yorker after all.)

So I'm upset he didn't do that. No matter if he was targeted or not, it was ultimately he who undercut his own character. And for what? Some titillating conversations over the Internet with women he never met (nor, if you see how he deftly averted all pleas from the Vegas dealer to get his ass to Vegas, probably never intended to meet.)

I'm also upset that underneath the politician is just a guy who could figuratively blow his wad on these types of throwaway playmates. Underneath the balls blazing liberal armor he's just a normal guy whose head is turned by a pretty face. He responded rather stereotypically to the greatest male weakness: hot women who "stroke" his ego. I've rarely met a guy who isn't susceptible to this. Those who would criticize him about it may act all pious, but if they're on marriage number 3 or 4 they quite simply need to STFU, because they have very little room to judge on the issue.

We're so conditionally puritanical in this country it's really hard to take any of the moral outrage seriously, quite frankly.

The good news (?) is that sexual scandals are fairly easy to rebound from if you're a guy because society kinda understands that boys will be boys. Everyone crying out for Weiner to resign need to take a deep breath and recall a couple of names from the past to see how truly crippling a sexual scandal is in the whole scheme of things.

We'll start with The King Bubba of all... Bill Clinton. He had a very similar situation happen to him back in the 90s, and he's so beloved now that he's more popular than the wife he cheated on. He could get re-elected in a second if the rules were to change.

In fact, one could argue that his fall from grace actually made him MORE accessible to people.

The reason people love flawed people is it makes them feel better about their own failures. That he was able to get the job done in the midst of all that practically made him a hero, especially after the disappointing two terms that followed.

We're a lot more forgiving when our lives improve in spite of (or because of) this stuff, and whether Bill was getting his pencil sharpened outside the marital bed lost a lot of its oomph when people started facing more dire consequences in their own pocketbook under a lesser president.

(That Weiner's wife is the assistant to Stand By Her Man Hillary Clinton is probably the most ironic part of the story. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on THAT wall as they hash this out?)

But it's not just the randy Democrats who get caught with their "hands" in the cookie jar.

Let's start with Louisiana Representative Bob Livingston, who was poised to follow Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House in the late 1990s but instead withdrew and even resigned as Congressman when it was revealed he had an extramarital affair. He challenged Bill Clinton to resign as well, as did Livingston's successor... one David Vitter.

Some short years later despite being named and accused of soliciting a prostitute, David Vitter retained the support of fellow "family values" Republicans who felt the biggest problem to arise after his sex scandal was that that if he did step down he would be replaced with an immoral Democrat. Instead he went on to win a second term as Junior Senator in Louisiana, and has refused to resign even when other colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, have been caught in similar situations and "honorably" stepped down like Bob Livingston.

To put this in perspective: Vitter was accused of soliciting a prostitute, which is a crime, in which he physically cheated on his wife. Yet he remained popular with his party AND the voters.

It's amazing what we're able to forgive when it's our guy who fumbled the ball, isn't it?

And speaking of Newt Gingrich, he's been married three times, had notorious affairs (including one during the Clinton/Lewinski scandal) and he's thrown in his hat to run for freaking president.

Yet... Anthony Weiner can supposedly kiss any hope of being governor goodbye?

Uh... yeah.

The way I look at it sexual scandals are best left between the people they directly affect. This means the husband and the wife. The only time I'll jump in is when morality gets a little subjective, and people who live in glass whorehouses want to throw some stones.

In other words, if you're fighting against gay marriage and you can't even be faithful to your own, I'm going to call your behavior into question. That's what happens when you set yourself up as the morality police.

(Ahem... David Vitter.)

Everything else is frankly none of my business. What he did with the prostitute isn't my business. That he can conduct himself in this way AND skate by on a family values platform... way my business.

If I have any beef at all it is that Weiner trusted the wrong kinda playmate in his indiscretions. Far too many women are opportunistic and will sell you out in a New York minute if they decide there is something in it for them... such as @LiberalLisa, who not only PUBLICIZED her private discussions with this man that SHE participated in (and now wants to play embarrassed victim, c'yeah right) but was shopping her story around via Twitter to the likes of Rachel Maddow.

A desperate grab at your 15 minutes of fame is far more reason to feel ashamed than some sophomoric pornographic exchanges.

(I mean really, Anthony... this is the BEST you could find in all of Liberal Land? I get that skanky can be sexy, but I'm sure there are some pretty AND classy women who know how to be a lady on the street but a freak in the bed... and discreet about it when push comes to shove. I mean, I can't be the ONLY one out there. :-P)

In short, or very, very long, I can't condemn the man for things that don't directly affect me, that are intimate matters between him and the woman he married, who may or may not have been aware or consented to this type of modern extracurricular activity.

(Famous folks operate by different rules, I've found. I don't get it but... it's best for us "ordinary" folks not to try and figure it out. Their world is just different.)

I'm disappointed that it stole some of his thunder and made him a lot less dangerous to his opponents (and mine.) And I'm sick that he lied and destroyed the part of his reputation that had made him so effective as a loud, liberal voice. The bottom line is Anthony Weiner neutered himself... and that's a damn shame.

All that other stuff... not our business. No matter how much we think it is.

Rape and the Victim Blame Game

2011-05-19T07:53:00.000-07:00

When I was in ninth grade, I selected Speech as an elective. My first speech was one I felt passionately about, and it took all my classmates off guard. Essentially I tackled the subject of how girls and women are treated when they press legal charges of rape. At first, the boys in the class snickered at the uncomfortable subject matter - but you could have heard a pin drop when I admitted that I, myself, was a survivor of rape.

At the end of the speech the class applauded - something they had not done for anyone else.

It was an amazing moment that taught me a little about courage, especially when classmates came to me privately later to tell me they understood what I was saying because they were survivors themselves. Only no one knew, because they hadn't yet found their voice to share their stories.

Some had been victimized by their own family members and thus were still terrified of what could happen to them if they told.

My immediate danger had been over for years, but I still understood well that fear because it had been tattooed inside of me by the actions of a stranger.

I had been taken from my yard as a four year old child and assaulted by a man I had never met, several blocks away in the back yard of a neighbor. I went with the stranger initially because I had never been taught to fear strangers. That was the benefit of living in small town Texas in 1974, where the crime rates were low and the possibility of the community living around you sharing your same values was high.

Yet one day the unthinkable happened. I was playing in my front yard and a man just happened to be walking down that particular street. He asked if I wanted to play a game and as a four year old I decided that I did - even though I knew leaving my yard was a big no no.

I didn't really have any fear until he put me down on the grass and took off my underwear. He then took me by surprise by exposing himself and laying on top of me. Within a few strokes he was done, but he told me to wait there for him and he took off.

For some reason I can't really explain, I thought that he meant he was going to go get a gun and come back for me and kill me. Eventually I began to cry and the neighbors in the house heard me. The police, who had already been looking for me, came and got me, then returned me home.

I had no fear of strange men before that day, but afterward I would never look at them the same way again. In truth, all men would scare me on some level because I no longer trusted that they would not hurt me.

(This may be why my gays mean so much to me. They, aside from my sons, are the only ones I know I can trust 100%.)

This story typically inspires a great deal of sympathy due to my age at the time of the attack. If this had been an acquaintance rape and I had been a lot older, whether or not it would have inspired the same outrage is debatable. In our society we have delegated the crime of rape to a more conditional status, that says we have to know who the accuser is, what she's done in her own life, and how she herself may have contributed to the attack.

Commentator Ben Stein recently proved this in living color when he wrote a piece for "American Spectator" that wanted to put the brakes on publicly crucifying accused rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn for any wrongdoing. He titled it, "Presumed Innocent, Anyone?"

The problem with his approach is that by presuming the accused innocent, he had to cast doubt on the accuser. Stein demonstrated an elitist, small-minded mentality that suggested only a certain type of person commits crimes and suggested that because he had some crazy chambermaids in his day that we couldn't *really* take this blue collar worker at her word.

His exact words, "How do we know that this woman's word was good enough to put Mr. Strauss-Kahn straight into a horrific jail?"

Unfortunately this misogynist way of thinking doesn't just limit itself to the blinding ignorance of Ben Stein. Recently while doing research for a couple of articles on rape I ran across websites, run by men, who doubted the authenticity of ANY rape charges.

The argument was, as was Stein's in his article, because these crimes go unreported there is some agenda to when they ultimately do have charges filed with the authorities.

Here are the statistics for you.

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network one in six women will be the target of rape (whether successful or attempted) in her lifetime. Men are targets as well, with a 1 in 33 chance of being the victim of sexual assault. Despite these alarming statistics, more than 60% of rapes go unreported - with men being the least likely to report an attack. Of those brave survivors that do, only about 50% secure an arrest. About 80% of these are prosecuted, but only about half of those get a conviction. Factoring all this together means that 15 of 16 of these criminals walk free.

So why is it so hard to first report a rape or sexual assault, and then prosecute it?

These are two sides of the same coin.

When you are raped, whether by force or coercion, it is a violent, invasive action. It takes that one sacred thing you should never lose control over, your body, and strips you of your humanity. It makes you feel like nothing more than a thing at the mercy of someone else.

This is why survivors are far more likely to treat their own bodies with disrespect after the attack. They are 26 times more likely to abuse drugs, 13 more times more likely to abuse alcohol and 4 times more likely to commit suicide.

And, speaking from experience, likely to indulge in highly sexualized behavior and an eating disorder from an early age. This impacts your entire life in ways you cannot even imagine. Here we are more than 30 years later and I still fight off the residual effects.

I may have only been four, but I felt immediate and long-lasting shame for the attack. I knew that going off with a stranger had been wrong, so I felt it had to have been my fault in some way. When I was returned to my mother and she asked me if anything inappropriate had happened, in a voice that let even a four year old know how very bad that could be, I lied.

Through this personal experience and the stories from the other survivors I've met who kept their stories secret, I assert that it's far more common for survivors to lie that it DIDN'T happen, as opposed to lying that it did.

Of anything you should have control over it is your own body, so if anyone does anything so heinous to it the victim always wonders if there was anything he or she could have done to prevent the attack. Maybe if we fought harder... maybe if we had just taken another street home... maybe if we had just been more clear sex was not what we wanted to that guy we dated in college.

The what ifs and maybes are endless.

This shame festers with an internal blame game that makes reporting a crime and dealing with the humiliation of sharing our greatest weakness or failure to another person, risk being considered bad, used or dirty.

It is compounded, mercilessly and purposely, by a male-driven society that will bend over itself to make excuses for the attacker by laying any guilt it can on the victim. The biggest defense for a rape case is that maybe sex did occur, but was it really *rape*?

It's a he said/she said scenario that makes a criminal out of the victim.

"What were you wearing?"

"Were you drinking?"

"Were you a virgin?"

Or, in the case of Mr. Stein, "The prosecutors say that Mr. Strauss-Kahn "forced" the complainant to have oral and other sex with him. How? Did he have a gun? Did he have a knife? He's a short fat old man. They were in a hotel with people passing by the room constantly, if it's anything like the many hotels I am in. How did he intimidate her in that situation? And if he was so intimidating, why did she immediately feel un-intimidated enough to alert the authorities as to her story?"

This mindset is unthinkable to me, but I have the misfortune of being someone who has actually been the victim of rape. I am one of the 84% of survivors who know exactly how one can be coerced without a weapon, forced and intimidated.

And in my case ultimately shamed into keeping my silence.

I didn't stop being intimidated the day I stood before my ninth grade class and admitted to all my peers that I was a survivor of rape.

I just got my voice back.

After nearly committing suicide myself at the age of 13 before I finally told my nearest and most trusted friend what had happened those nine years before, I began a long journey to understand that what happened was not my fault. No matter what I did, he had no right to take my no away from me.

Going public, though scary, though painful, though embarrassing - was how I turned something dark and ugly into something good and positive.

I applaud ANY rape survivor who does the same. She (or he) doesn't have to prove to me they are qualified to make the claim.

Presumed innocent?

Yes. The victim most certainly is.

The Misnomer of "Pro-Life"

2011-03-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

As a writer I believe both in the power of and the responsibility of word choices. I understand how emotions can be manipulated with a well turned phrase, and nowhere is that abuse more egregious than in the term "pro-life."

I have no problem with you if you disagree with abortions. If it's a matter of morality for you, then I believe you should definitely be free to live your life by your own moral barometer.

I know many people who feel this way and I respect their feelings on the matter. I don't take the matter of abortion lightly, and I would argue that most women, whether pro-choice or not, feel likewise.

To suggest otherwise sets us up in these enemy camps where we're kept apart mostly by the simple misuse of words.

The term "pro-life" is a bit like "family values." It's fairly vague and in that ambiguity there is a lot of room for contradiction that basically tears your own argument asunder, making your own point impossible to logically win.

"Pro-life" indicates a moral superiority that can and should go beyond fighting for a fetus, yet so many times it doesn't.

For instance many of those that vehemently claim to be "pro-life" also believe in things like guns, war and capital punishment. A select few also decide that it's okay to gun down abortion providers, bomb clinics and terrorize women who are already facing some difficult decisions. Yet they feel this behavior is completely justified. That means it's okay for someone to live as long as *you* approve of the way they do it. Everything else is up for grabs, and everyone else is just collateral damage.

Unfortunately this is not just limited to adults who commit crimes or do something you think might be wrong. These are also the sort who will post on the Internet that a nine-year-old ruthlessly gunned down and murdered in cold blood was actually a *good thing* because she might grow up to be a Liberal.

That means - technically - you are "conditionally" pro-life, which isn't quite as noble as its name might suggest. This makes the virtue of the "pro-life" concept equally as conditional. This shuts down the debate based on logic alone.

Worse are those who clamor to save the children yet often are the ones who support politicians and policies that seek to de-fund public education, programs that provide food, aid and health care to at-risk kids who made the unfortunate mistake of being born to parents who can't afford to care for them. That means, again, "pro-life" deceptively leaves out the *quality* of the life for which you are fighting.

In other words, forcing someone to live by your choices only to ditch them when it's time to pay the bill doesn't make you as righteous as you'd like to believe. Whereas Jesus never said one word about abortion, he did make it clear that whatever you do for the least of us you do for him.

(He also made the point that if you deny those unfortunate souls you likewise deny Christ. Think about that next time you protest an abortion then turn around and gripe about how your taxes are going to pay for those actual children who result.)

The more appropriate term is anti-choice, but that doesn't quite have the same noble, righteous ring to it. First, it gives away the true nature of the agenda at work - to take away the choices of women who find themselves dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Secondly, it doesn't sound quite so conservative. Being defined by what you're against means you're a trouble maker. Who wants to align themselves with the unwashed anti-establishment masses?

If, however, we strip away the provocative, manipulative language - we'd find out we're not so far apart as you'd think. There are many pro-choice proponents who are anti-abortion. We're just trying to approach it from another, more pragmatic angle. By the time a woman gets to the abortion clinic, it's too late to intervene. She's already considered what her options are and how feasible each one might be for her own particular circumstances. Consider a woman figures out she's pregnant probably weeks before she can actually have an abortion performed; there is a lot of time to ponder the choices available.

An abortion may seem to an outsider to be a quick way to brush it all under the rug but there's some thought that goes into it, believe me. Once a woman finds out she's pregnant, often she can't think of anything else. This is particularly true if her circumstances aren't good at the time.

Where the thought needs to occur is BEFORE the pregnancy to help reduce the instances of abortion. About half of all abortions in the world are performed illegally, which poses health risks to the woman herself. This again goes against that whole "pro-life" thing you currently got going for you.

(The mother's life still counts.)

According to the Guttmacher Institute, simply making abortion illegal does not mean less abortions are performed, rather the reverse tends to prove true. Countries where abortion is illegal often see the higher abortion rates.

By contrast, the countries with the least instances of abortion per capita tend to be the most liberal in regards to their laws on abortion, contraception availability and sex education.

An ounce of prevention, as they say, is worth a pound of cure.

So why has this very proven method been so ignored by the United States?

Simple. The anti-choice movement is not so much anti-choice as it is anti-woman.

I know I lost some of you with that one, but hear me out.

When women are given the opportunity to choose for themselves how to manage their own sexuality, it defies all those patriarchal family values that cling to the idea that a man is needed to properly manage the life of women and children. This is why someone like Natalie Portman can be challenged by leaders on the right for her choice to become a parent, even though by any definition of success she has managed to adequately prepare her life for a new baby... EXCEPT for the part where she hasn't yet married.

Conversely someone like Bristol Palin can be lifted on the shoulders of the "pro-life" movement that shows that a teenager who happened to get pregnant out of wedlock can "make the right choice" to have her baby anyway - even though she hadn't finished school (Portman has a degree from Harvard,) Bristol didn't have a job (aside from taking breaks to earn an education Portman has been working since she was Bristol's age by the time she got pregnant.)

Not to mention that Natalie Portman also nearly 30 years old AND engaged... yet she can earn the ire of the Right Wing while Bristol gets a free pass.

Once more this unravels your pro-life, conservative family values argument all to pieces before you even bring it to the table.

One of the easiest challenges to this hypocritical about-face would be the fact that Portman is in fact Jewish and part of the entertainment industry, which is notoriously liberal. That's a double whammy against the right wing Religious Right.

Again this proves that the argument is basically Pro-Conditional-Life.

The idea that a woman can decide for herself when to become sexually active as well as when to become a parent in essence gives her total autonomy over something that men fear losing control over. The problem is, like any oppressive majority control, that concept of control is merely an illusion. Eventually those you are oppressing will discover they have a say over those things you have subtly (and not so subtly) suggested that we aren't smart enough or strong enough to claim as our own.

A woman's sexuality and subsequent possible physical condition of pregnancy is her world alone to navigate. You can partner with her in it, but ultimately - her body, her control.

This is the core of this problem.

If men could get pregnant abortion wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. I think it was Roseanne who said, "If men could get pregnant, not only would abortion be legal it'd be available in a drive thru with chicken wings and beer."

But because men cannot either experience or control pregnancy, instead they use what control they have by whatever means possible - in this case both legal and economical. Forcing pregnancy onto women who cannot afford to have a child in effect keeps her poor and easy to control for the foreseeable future, as well as her children, who likewise fall into the same destructive patterns thanks to their impoverished conditions. Poverty is a cycle, my friends. That is why it is so necessary for those who benefit so much from their control over the less fortunate to fight against laws that would allow a woman to believe that she *might* be able to make these hard choices for herself. Putting off motherhood until she was more financially prepared for it essentially gives her the key to break the cycle of poverty and step free of the shackles that come with it.

This is why the anti-choice movement is often coupled with preventing the two things that have PROVEN to prevent the need for abortion - comprehensive sex education and easy access to birth control.

Certain anti-choice groups aren't going to be satisfied with making abortion illegal, because they see BIRTH CONTROL as a method of abortion.

If you think the attack on establishments like Planned Parenthood are simply over abortion, you're not looking at the much bigger picture. Planned Parenthood provides low-cost birth control to young women with limited resources - i.e. women at risk for unwanted pregnancy. This essentially takes away the proven tools necessary (easy access birth control, comprehensive sex education) to prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.

By doing so more women are at risk to actually get pregnant and likewise seek abortions - like many other countries the world over where abortion rates are much higher despite their illegal status. The same oppressive principle is at work.

This is why the term "anti-choice" is far more apt than "pro-life." You're not saving lives by taking these choices away.

Abortion is a necessary evil which has existed long before some legal ruling in 1973. Whether legal or not it will exist as long as women can get pregnant when their circumstances are far less than ideal.

Instead of fighting each other over semantics, how about we come together and find solutions that will help us get to a place where abortion is less needed and desired, rather than less legal? Only one of these has proven to work - and it's not yours.

Stop forcing your religious morality onto strangers and perhaps you won't have to worry about eventually having some of your money going either to pay for abortion OR to take care of the children once they get here.

In other words, stop robbing the choices of others because in your mind you've decided all your choices are "the right ones."

More likely they are the ones on the right - and those two are not mutually inclusive.

So let's stop letting manipulative, deceptive language separate us from the common goal: to make every child that comes into the world be a child that is wanted by a parent prepared, both emotionally and financially, to care for it.

To me... that is the most noble "pro-life" argument to be made.

The God as a Bully Mentality

2011-03-15T09:33:00.000-07:00

As I've said before, I think the biggest problem with God and Christianity are those that are attempting to do the current PR.

After the devastating earthquake and tsunami that ravaged Japan March 11th, MOST people felt an outpouring of compassion and concern. But as we knew from previous experience with the likes of Pat Robertson, there are those media leeches who have a vain, narcissistic need to turn the attention back to them by saying the most asinine thing they could think of to get tongues wagging.

Yes, Glenn Beck. I'm talking to you.

Glenn decided he needed to introduce the concept maybe, just maybe, God sent these devastating effects to teach us all something.

He didn't say it *exactly*, but he didn't NOT say it either.

As usual, this shock jock needed to needle people by stoking the two emotions he's discovered run rampant in his target audience: moral superiority and blind fear.

It's a combustible mix, just ask the Westboro folks.

There are those who are either comforted or justified when an act of nature strikes so that they can hang the culpability on God. In their mind it is perfectly logical that God would need to send a catastrophe to "get our attention" to let us know that we're doing something we shouldn't be doing.

This always makes me extremely suspect of their own parenting skills. Anyone who could think that God - who is supposedly their heavenly Father - could send death and destruction just to "teach them a lesson" should be closely watched on how they decide to parent THEIR children.

Jesus tackled this mindset in the Bible. Not only did he heal lepers that the community believed cursed by God, he tried to teach the faithful how to properly pray saying to ask your needs and desires and not fear that you might be punished instead with calamity. He said, simply, "Which of you, if asked by your child for a fish, would give him a snake instead?"

He tried to get us to understand that God was not a wrathful force but a father who was willing to do for us all the good things we would do for our own children.

And in fact the entire reason for Jesus at all according to any card carrying Christian (whether ChristianTM or not) was that he was the last and ultimate sacrifice for our sinful nature, and as such is an intercessor working on our behalf to reconcile us with God. "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

What sense does it make to kill your only begotten son so the world doesn't perish ONLY TO KILL THEM?

For the record... God wasn't in the Earthquake that devastated Japan. That's nature. Earthquakes happen as indiscriminately hurricanes and tornadoes. These are not thinking entities. They have no purpose, reason or emotion. They are, quite simply, events.

In the case of Japan, it's not even that shocking of an event. It would be like an earthquake hitting California, or a tornado hitting Kansas. Earthquakes happen in that part of the world on a regular basis, the only shocking thing about it was the previously unimaginable scope.

The only thing *bigger* than the devastation is the response we imperfect humans managed to muster, rather effortlessly, after it happened. By any religious nut's own argument, we humans managed to be BETTER than God if God could be so heartless to send this kind of devastation "just cuz."

Personally I don't think it has to be either/or. I believe that we humans balance a divine nature along with our own natural instincts... and it is in THAT nature you will find the face of God. That means if you are truly looking for God in this scenario, you need look no further than the massive outpouring of concern, compassion and support that followed this tragic event. It was unconditional and it was full of the mercy that Jesus was so maligned for by the religious leaders of his day.

The selfish nature of mankind would say we let the earth shake off those it feels the need to, but it is the divine nature within us that *needs* to reach out and ease the suffering. The nature of a savior, and indeed the heart of Christ himself, is to be overwhelmed with empathy where we cannot simply sit still and let these people suffer more than they already have.

THAT is the Jesus as he is taught from the Bible... and likewise the bridge to God himself.

The only people who would label God as the type of bully Glenn Beck suggests he is are people who can justify bullying of any degree to make their own point.

Yep, still talking to you, Glenn Beck.

These sanctimonious religious folks are deeply insecure that their message will eventually be silenced. They see themselves trapped in a lost and evil world that would reject their message and their God and ultimately challenge them to question their own faith (which, I think, scares them the most.)

I hate to tell ya, but you're part of the problem.

Like I mentioned in my blog The Jesus People See, anytime you attach the label "Christian" to your lapel you're representing Jesus to the world. If you have no clue what his message truly is (cough... Glenn Beck...cough,) then you're turning people AWAY and making your own enemies by your own bully tactics that completely miss the mark of his message of grace and mercy.

What's even more unfathomable is that you think you get to skate in on this same grace and get "saved" by someone else's sacrifice... but it is everyone else in the world that needs to change.

If you're the kind of person who believes that God could send an earthquake to teach "Japan" (or "the others") a lesson, then what exactly is God trying to teach you by your own challenges?

Do you stop to think about that? Or are you quite comfortable in the position of a sanctimonious and bullying Pharisee, who, if left unchecked, will actually try to kill anything that Jesus actually stood for?

I'm not saying that losing sponsors, ratings and an audience as a media personality is God trying to tell Beck something...but I'm not NOT saying it either.

Strangely though, those people so willing to blame God on these types of events to teach someone ELSE something generally believe that the challenges they face are God *supporting* them through their trials and persecution so that they don't have to change.

Funny how that works out.

It seems for these kinds of folks, Christianity didn't do anything to teach them the message or heart of Christ. It just gave them carte blanche to justify bullying because that's the only approach they understand.

For that, I feel sorry for you.

The Bible says that Jesus came to give not just life but that more abundantly, so if you must insert God into any act of nature I'd prefer to find God in a sunrise rather than an earthquake. Miracles exist, if you only know where to look for it, and I think God has a lot more to say in the heart of compassion than one of condemnation and rebuke.

I've been through some stuff in my life, and never once did I find comfort or reason by blaming God for the bad stuff.

Where I did find transformation and growth was how his grace got me through it.

"God hath not promised skies always blue,
Flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God hath not promised sun without rain,
Joy without sorrow, peace without pain.

* But God hath promised strength for the day,
Rest for the labor, light for the way,
Grace for the trials, help from above,
Unfailing sympathy, undying love."

Click here to donate to The American Red Cross to assist in their emergency response to the devastation in Japan.

Nuts, Crazy, Crackers, Bananas.

2011-03-01T18:54:00.001-08:00

The word “crazy” gets thrown around a lot, and there’s usually not much more to it than, “That’s behavior I don’t understand so I’ll just toss it in the ‘crazy’ category so I know what to do with it.”

It’s a very small word with a lot of different definitions. Some of them are quite negative, and justifiably so, but I think the overuse of this word has actually robbed it of the impact that in some cases it needs to have.

There are some folks who think I’m crazy to be a “comedy groupie” for Hal Sparks, and that driving all over the continent to see him is bizarre, freaky or nutso. Granted it may be outside the norm, but generally speaking I and several others like me are mentally sound enough not to take it to a dangerous extreme. We don’t stalk him from the bushes or have unrealistic expectations of non-existent relationships; we simply enjoy him as a performer and get a lot of enjoyment out of the traveling to new places and meeting new people with similar interests.

It’s like watching the Rocky Horror Picture Show 1000 times in a theater – it’s a form of entertainment we enjoy and therefore continue to do to add some pizazz in our otherwise boring, “normal” lives.

Same thing with friends of mine who are covered in tattoos. They get judged for being “crazy” to permanently scar their skin with intensely personal artistic expressions they’re brave enough to wear for a lifetime on their body. Yet again these are folks who maybe love something to an extent “most” do not – but that doesn’t make them crazy.

To me crazy is when you no longer have any real control over your behavior, and this self-destructive drive manifests itself outwardly.

Just dismissing someone as crazy often means it’s their problem and you don’t have to do any more than judge it from the comfort of your armchair.

In fact, many people enjoy the spectacle. Which is why Charlie Sheen’s meltdown has become headline news lately. People are lapping it up and don’t care a smidge that there are innocent children involved who have to deal with this obviously disturbed individual on a constant basis.

There’s a part of human nature that likes to see the mighty fall – or the average do something completely apeshit so they can be amused, entertained or otherwise distracted from THEIR boring, “normal,” day to day.

Dunno… sounds kinda crazy….

The problem with this cavalier, voyeuristic exploitation of the word “crazy” is that when someone’s crazy behavior indicates a serious mental illness, no one is willing to give it any kind of credence at all. “They’re just crazy,” people dismiss, and because of that we get things like what happened in Tucson.

At some point someone who was really fast-tracking right off the rails interacted with someone else – someone sane – and they could tell that something was “not right.” Yet there’s a part of us that refuses to believe that someone could really be that disconnected from reality and thus really not *dangerous* (just ‘crazy’,) so we generally look the the other way or worse… wash our hands from our own responsibility to intervene. We pass it off to the next person and the next, figuring it’s not our problem until we are the ones with the gun to our heads.

And maybe that’s what we fear. It’s a lot easier to say, “That person is crazy,” than invest ourselves and risk ourselves to get involved and find a brake to the runaway train.

Frankly we don’t want the responsibility.

It’s scary… especially when you’re dealing with someone who is mentally disturbed.

The other side of this indifferent coin is we don’t want to be wrong. We don’t want to mix up the crazy, because some crazy is okay.

Is it a normal, quirky crazy that means they just have a habit they’re a little *too* passionate about (by our own definition)? Or is it locked up in the book tower, pantyhose on the head, taking shots at innocent bystanders crazy?

If we’re going by the former definition we’re all a little crazy in one way or another. Fortunately most of us won’t get to the latter because we aren’t really crazy at all. We’re quite sane, even if a bit quirky or unusual.

What’s crazy-insane is when we step over the line between the two. For most of us that’s a brick wall as high as the sky we couldn’t really get around because we’re just not capable of it.

The switch hasn’t flipped.

For others whose switch is wired a bit differently, it’s a chalk line on the sidewalk that just keeps moving further into dangerous territory every time someone just dismisses disturbing behavior as “normal/crazy.”

With this kind of ambivalence, true “crazy” gives way to psychotic eventually.

How does one go from not having a record, able to get guns, then go on a shooting rampage? It doesn’t happen overnight… many people are exposed to these warning signs way before the actual event. We watch it happen in disbelief, unable to believe that someone we could know or even love is capable of doing the unthinkable.

It’s a place none of us want to find ourselves, and being a spectator of this downward spiral is even more disheartening… because the ones who manage to dash over that line are generally incapable of recognizing the behavior because they’re NOT crazy – they’re sick.

I went through this with my first husband Dan, who was mentally ill when I didn’t even know it. I thought he was working through understandable emotional issues from his childhood, I had no idea there was something physically wrong with him to spur on “crazy” behavior.

What a revelation it was to me years later to find out that this was a misfiring in his brain that meant through therapy and medication he could be *better*. And by that point I knew that nothing else would stop the downward spiral until he self-destructed completely.

It was a life raft that I know in my heart too many people never get thrown. They end up lining the streets as the homeless or populating jail cells and self-medicate with alcohol, drugs and other equally self-destructive vices. Meanwhile spectators from the safety of their “non-crazy” lives are willing to dismiss this troublesome or frightening behavior as some sort of personal failure rather than a symptom of a tormenting mental illness.

In the same way we dismiss others as crazy, we try to assign our own mental attributes onto them as if they are sane… or at least as sane as we think we are.

It’s as fun to judge these sad souls as it is to watch them stumble and fall… which is why Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Mel Gibson and Charlie Sheen dominate the headlines whenever they act as crazy as we as a society have already decided they are.

I find it all terribly, terribly sad. Because I know it’s all terribly, terribly unnecessary.

And I think if anyone ever really understood mental illness they’d never fling around the word “crazy” as some dismissive label to stick on anyone we don’t understand.

Mental illness is nothing to laugh at – OR dismiss.

In fact, by dismissing this behavior as just generic “crazy” we in fact validate this disturbing behavior and encourage it to get worse. And it will get worse. Nothing tests the boundaries like true “crazy”. It will keep erasing that line on the sidewalk and marking it further and further until someone is brave enough and strong enough to put a stop to that behavior.

It has to be someone outside of the individual, because they are too ill to make this determination for themselves.

And, just as a personal aside, anyone who encourages the deranged delusions of someone who is seriously mentally ill just to make a buck should be ASHAMED of themselves certainly – but I would make an argument that legal charges should be filed if these sick individuals act on any behavior these charlatans encouraged.

Because we have an equal part in the “crazy.” If we witness this troubling behavior and do nothing, not only will the mentally ill person be a danger to him or herself, but we will be an accomplice to the behavior we could have alerted someone else to before it went too far.

This is especially true of anyone who is married to or related to someone who is so clearly off the rails.

Love them enough to get them the help they are not well enough to know they need.

Some are quite adept at manipulating health care providers to fly *just under* the radar (and IMO are even MORE dangerous because they’re at least sane enough to know how crazy they are), but those who live with these folks day in and day out KNOW what’s going on.

I’ve been there. I know. I know the excuses that you make. I know the way you use yourself as a barrier between the person you love and the world around them. I know that you are equally tormented because you don’t know what it’s going to mean for your life and your family if you have to take drastic measures (like getting someone committed so they can get the extensive 24/hour care they need ASAP).

It’s scary. I get that.

But I can promise if you don’t get help for them somewhere down the line they will do something so extreme, so unequivocally crazy your choices will be taken away from you in the same way that your loved one’s will be taken away from him or her. That prospect is a lot scarier.

Especially when it becomes a legal issue you will be considered an accomplice to the behavior for your failure to properly meet the needs of this person when they needed you most.

If strangers are stepping in, take the hint.

So if you are anyone you love are facing some very upsetting mental disturbances, reach out for help. Don’t cross a line that cannot be uncrossed.

Sometimes the most loving thing you can ever do is to make the hard choice for someone who isn’t able to make choices for him or herself.

And if you’re lost in your own head and you are having a hard time deciphering fantasy from reality… know that I don’t think you’re “crazy.”

I think you’re sick.

I know it’s easier to believe those things you want to believe, but nothing good comes from fixating on a fantasy. The more you need to deny reality to make sense of your delusions, the more you risk the people around you. Nothing is worth the reality you already have.

Please, PLEASE get help.

A Note to the Critics of American Idol's Chris Medina

2011-01-27T11:23:00.000-08:00

It never fails to amaze me how people can be cold or callous with the things they do or say. It seems like some have decided their role in the world is to make fun of everything else, even when it's in extremely poor taste to do so.

Case in point: American Idol Season 10's Chris Medina.

Even if you don't watch the show you've probably heard the name at least one point between yesterday and today. His story is the one that will go down in the AI record books as the most aptly titled sob story in history.

(Go get some tissue... seriously...)

Now I realize there are those who refuse to ever watch a stitch of AI for principle's sake, and that's fine - but understand you really don't get a vote on this particular topic unless you see this story for yourself. To have an opinion based on your own biases is in fact a bias all on its own, and I really don't have the patience to entertain that right now. I have bigger fish to fry - namely those who could watch the video and still find fault with this powerful story.

And, believe it or not, there were some. They are the party to whom this blog is dedicated.

Immediately upon viewing my Twitter/Facebook feed blew up with the majority of folks overcome by the story. Even Michael Ian Black, who has turned snark into an art form, had only this to say:

"Very reluctantly admitting that I just teared up at the end of American Idol."

To sum up, Chris Medina's fiance Juliana had suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident just two months before their 2009 wedding. Because they were two months away from "in sickness and in health," and these were vows he'd already made in essence when they got engaged, Chris hangs in there for Juli who needs him now more than ever.

It's the kind of tragedy that immediately rips your heart out - IF, that is, you have a heart to rip out. The judges were all overcome, and Steven 'bout destroyed me when he held her face in his hands and tearfully said, "The reason he sings so good is because he's singing to you." Tears visibly fell from the Dawg's face and I'm sure even Cranky Cowell shed a tear somewhere.

But of course, we wouldn't be our spectacularly flawed human race if we didn't have some detractors out there who felt the inexplicable need to jump all over this tender moment and crap enthusiastically thereupon.

Some pounced on his comment, "What kind of guy would I be if I left her when she needed me most?" They wanted to know why he'd even leave her to audition for American Idol - which, if you do well, means you're going to go away for months at a time while competing and touring.

Some were quick to accuse him and AI of exploiting his fiance to ensure a spot in Hollywood and possibly the finals with a powerful sob story that actually overshadowed his audition. Because of this, there are those who believe that without the sob story he wouldn't have even made it through the preliminary audition round.

Others question if he should even make it past Hollywood and others still commented on how "uncomfortable" it made them to see Juliana wheeled in looking overcome and "confused."

All of it just begs the question.... what's wrong with these people?

I get why the AI sob stories can be a source of contention. People wonder if the contestants are getting through on their talent as opposed to the touchy-feeling back story that has run the gamut of human tragedy.

"It's a talent show," might be the refrain. "It's a show," would be my reply.

It may seem exploitative to broadcast these folks and their sad stories, but it's good TV. Idol wouldn't be Idol without memorable contestants, and I hate to break it to you the show isn't *just* about the talent.

Nor is being an idol... but that's a topic for another time and another blog. *cough*Justin Bieber*cough*Miley Cyrus*cough*cough*gag*

Historically on Idol talent pretty much rises to the top regardless of the back story. In 2009 Danny Gokey had the advantage going into Hollywood Week and the finals thanks to the touching story of his late wife... but eventually the megawatt talent of Adam Lambert (who didn't have a sob story) and the acoustic chops of Kris Allen (likewise sans sob story) trumped it to secure a spot in the Idol finales.

(One of the most awesome finales in the entire history of Idol, I might add. KISS, Queen and Adam Lambert. It was a trifecta of awesomeness.)

Chris, like Danny, has the chops to get through. Just because what we remember most is the story doesn't mean he wouldn't have gotten through on talent alone - which he most certainly would have (especially with these judges.) He might not have been technically the best vocal talent to get through, but he certainly wasn't the worst either. If anyone is exploiting the story over the talent it would be those naysayers who believe he didn't nail the audition... which he most certainly did.

And yes, his auditioning for Idol means that, in a best case scenario, he is going to be separated from his beloved for long periods of time. But that is to work his ass off to make something of himself to take better care of *her.* How can anyone anywhere equate that to his simply walking away for good?

In case you didn't know this, medical care is expensive. This guy already had a band and the desire to make singing his trade. His using his talent in a way to jump start his career in a big way makes sense to anyone who isn't just looking for a reason to nitpick something.

He is trying to to make enough money to properly care for her. You're risking nothing more than tapping away from the safety of your computer. Yet there's something wrong with what *he's* doing?

I don't think so.

Finally to those who cried foul on the discomfort they felt witnessing Juliana in the room with the judges: that's not her problem, their problem or even the fault of Idol. That's your issue alone.

Life isn't always pretty or comfortable - and people exist who have extra challenges getting through in the world... not the least of which is being against the norm. They deserve our love and acceptance, not our disdain.

I personally wanted to go through the television screen and do just what the judges did - especially Steven. How could anyone see that precious woman and not want to put your arms around her? What a triumph of the human spirit to come back from something like a devastating brain injury!

I just don't get how anyone can look at either Chris or Juliana and not think, "There but for the grace of God go I." A car accident can happen to anyone. This bolt of lightning could have struck anywhere... even your own family. What would you do if this were you or someone you loved? What if these were your choices to make? Wouldn't you go for broke to make things better if it was at all in your power to do so?

It's called empathy - putting yourself in the shoes of another - and a quality which these critics are sadly lacking.

My husband and I watched this show together, hands clasped, and in tears (well.. I was sobbing but I saw him wipe away some tears of his own too.) We were made profoundly aware that all the problems we've suffered through the last few months aren't all that bad in the whole scheme of things. We have each other. We are both relatively healthy. And we understood his commitment to his fiance staying through the toughest of times because that's just what love does.

It was a moment when if you had that kind of love you were immediately thankful, and if you hadn't found it yet you knew instantly you wouldn't settle for anything less.

When you make that choice to commit yourself and your life to someone, there's never an option to walk away.

It was a love story of the truest kind. It was a beautiful testament to self-sacrifice, endurance, faith and the resilience of the human spirit. So if you were left cold by the experience to the point you have to pick it apart to feel better about yourself...then I feel much sorrier for you than I could ever feel for Chris OR Juli.

That problem, my friend, is with you alone.

At the top of this blog I've entitled it, "Rants and Raves about what I think is right, wrong or just plain weird about the world."

Your lack of empathy may be what's wrong...

But what Chris and Juli share, and the never ending ripple of love and support it's created is what's right.

The Blame Game

2011-01-13T10:36:00.000-08:00

There have been many moments in the last two years where I have been reminded why I voted for Barack Obama. Last night was one of them. His speech at the Tucson Memorial Service was stirring, uplifting, respectful and most of all...accountable.

It was just what we needed.

"But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

After all, that's what most of us do when we lose someone in our family - especially if the loss is unexpected. We're shaken from our routines, and forced to look inward. We reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder. Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us? Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in awhile but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward - but it also forces us to look forward, to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. We may ask ourselves if we've shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether we are doing right by our children, or our community, and whether our priorities are in order. We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame - but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others." - President Barack Obama.

There are those who say that examining the raging political discourse in this country is somehow assigning the blame of the shooter onto an innocent society (or more importantly, influential figures.) Sarah Palin released a statement that strongly rejected "The Blame Game" - when it comes to her camp in particular.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies … journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible." - Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.

I can understand her defensiveness. Given the unfortunate coincidence of her crosshairs/bullseye map she's become sort of the Poster Girl of what's wrong with political discourse in our country.

There have been many, myself included, who, when we heard about this shocking crime made a direct, angry line right to her door to assign culpability on what we considered her blood-stained hands.

As the shock began to subside, a keen awareness began to take its place... at least for me. Like I said in my previous post, most of us really don't think that she intended for the targets on her map to be taken out in a hail of gunfire. In fact it was probably quite to the contrary, as this kind of publicity isn't one that helps her political aspirations in the future. She was simply speaking in terms she understands, and what she truly feels America understands.

Sadly, I can't really say she's far wrong. We live in a soundbite/visual culture that takes one piece of an otherwise complicated puzzle and runs with it. We rely heavily on hyperbolic symbolism for our ham-fisted efforts to get our message across as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Even in the wake of this tragedy, both sides relied on the methods that packed the strongest wallop.

Part of it was because we were angry and didn't know how to react to this huge shock to our society. It felt like a punch, so we punched back... and we were fairly indiscriminate to where our swings landed.

In that sense, there's plenty of blame to go around. Liberals are just as capable of sending death threats to those in office or in the public eye with whom we disagree. In the Hal Sparks Ustream chat room that I helped to moderate, one of our rules is "No Threats."

It was a rule put in place after another moderator noticed that some angry participants were quick to threaten bodily harm to those on the opposite side with whom they disagreed vehemently.

This is a chatroom that attracts primarily those who are left of center to far left, which sadly proves that the "Neo-Cons" and the "Radical Right" don't corner the market on this type of unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous discourse.

It was unacceptable before, and I can promise it's going to be more unacceptable now. There is no place in civil discussion for threats and intimidation. In a very real, literal sense this amounts to terrorism.

The seed of terrorism always, ALWAYS starts with the words that we use toward one another. Any act of violence of this nature starts with verbal or written clues, and it is very much our responsibility to take notice of it and denounce it immediately.

This is a problem in our nation that is NOT, as Sarah Palin says, a matter of "passionate" discourse. Civility is being rejected out of hand to pander to the lowest common denominator. This unchecked disrespect and mounting hatred steals the humanity of your opponent, which it easier to consider them "disposable."

Newsflash! You can have a passionate debate without invoking violent rhetoric, resorting to death threats or using violent imagery as tools of intimidation.

Sarah Palin, or even the "heated" debate in our nation, may very well not be to blame in lighting the match that led to *this* tragedy.

But she very much is to blame for looking at the increasing number of violent episodes in the last two years that ARE politically motivated and dismissing it as good ol' American tradition.

"There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government." - Palin.

Such an ideology is simplistic at best. It ignores the sad and scary fact that the shooting in Arizona wasn't an isolated event. These acts of domestic terrorism based on political discord are reaching the primitive level where people DO take to their guns to solve their disputes. There are those who proudly stoke the fires of insurrection, and those who have tragically acted upon the fear and paranoia that results.

If one truly hates violence, as Sarah has said, one doesn't invoke it. These words *do* have consequences. That Gabby Giffords was on Sarah's crosshairs/bullseye map before being gunned down may very well be the most unfortunate of coincidences... but that doesn't mean that it won't be an excuse for someone later on.

Saying that this is just part of a passionate discourse that happens in our country and what makes it so great only fuels the fire under those who would take it a step too far.

It also rejects the idea that we can do anything at all to make things better out of hand, which at its heart is the very antithesis of America.

I personally prefer a leader who doesn't look at something with that level of shrug-of-the-shoulder cynicism. That government Palin speaks about is also one she routinely criticizes; one that is broken and imperfect because it is made up of people who "are not angels."

It must grow and evolve along with its constituents to ensure those lofty promises of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That cannot happen without first believing we can make it so.

"I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here - they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That's what I believe, in part because that's what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation's future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us...we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children's expectations." - Obama.

Yes, bad things happen. Bad things have always happened and they will continue to happen. We can't use that as an excuse not to be better than what we were, because that's what those bad things are there to teach us.

And there are many things that are wrapped up in this tragedy from which we can learn... and more importantly SHOULD learn. To shrug it off the cuff as the actions of a lone, "evil" man are short-sighted and dangerous. We can do better. We should do better. And it starts by learning the difference between blame and accountability.

To be accountable for your words does not mean you accept blame for the actions of another. It just means you accept the responsibility of being a part of something a lot larger than yourself.

For whatever reason, Jared Loughner shattered something whole, peaceful and good. It's up to us to pick up the pieces. Not just for those who are gone, but for those who remain.

I am proud to share President Obama's "hopey/changey" mentality that says we ARE responsible for making this world a better place.

There's a saying that a baby is God's way of letting us know he hasn't given up on the human race. God gave us promising new life on a day of tragedy 9 years ago... a new life that, while short, tried to fulfill the hopes and dreams of a devastated nation. She DID try to make the world a better place. She WAS brave enough to get involved, to stick her neck out... to be accountable.

Let us learn from her, and from Daniel Hernandez, who ran toward gunfire and risked his life to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens. Let us learn from Patricia Maisch, who - at 61 years of age - took the responsibility of wrestling ammunition from a dangerous, armed man. She, along with ordinary citizens like Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio subdued this man and prevented him from continuing on with his killing spree and likely saved many lives as a result.

They are known as heroes now simply because they decided to stop something that needed to be stopped. They were brave enough to get involved in a solution, rather than just bear witness to the problem.

"These men and women remind us that heroism is found not only on the fields of battle. They remind us that heroism does not require special training or physical strength. Heroism is here, all around us, in the hearts of so many of our fellow citizens, just waiting to be summoned - as it was on Saturday morning.

Their actions, their selflessness, also pose a challenge to each of us. It raises the question of what, beyond the prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?" - Obama.

It doesn't take an act of dramatic heroism to change the course of history. It should not considered bravery to take responsibility for the things you do or say. It doesn't take an "angel" to be accountable for our part in the common good. This is the strength of character that lies in the heart of every human being - that can rise above what is to fulfill what can be.

If all we have to do to wrestle ammunition out of a man's hand is to rise above petty name-calling, angry insults or this endless blame game that says all of the problems in the world land on the shoulders of whom we disagree... shouldn't we do it?

And if we don't... should we not be blamed?

We are not responsible for the actions of this gunman.

But we are to blame if we don't learn from it and allow it to happen again.

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Winston Churchill.

When Hyperbole Meets Reality

2011-01-11T09:21:00.000-08:00

In one very profound moment of acute lucidity, Jon Stewart nailed why so many people were quick to "attack" the discord which dominates the political discussion in this country. Ironically the debate shoved so sharply into focus in the wake of the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords this past Saturday sadly proves the point far more than it refutes it.

This is a long clip, but I urge you to watch Jon's heartfelt commentary about the AZ massacre over the weekend. The Daily Show, known more for it's tongue-in-cheek approach to news and politics eloquently made the point so many of us had been trying to make.

In a hail of gunfire lives were shattered because what should have been a chasm between hyperbole and reality was crossed in a matter of seconds. It was another brutal example of how easy it is to blur the line between literal, logical thought and hyperbolic propaganda, and the subsequent devastating results that follow.

Thanks to the sensationalistic undertone of our media and our politics that chasm has become a line that is unthinkably too thin.

We, as a nation, should find that shocking and unacceptable.

The blood of true patriots was spilled in an afternoon and yet... there have been far too many people who have traded genuine horror in a knee-jerk defense that would rather be right than compassionate - or accountable.

This applies to both sides of the aisle.

By our refusal to say enough's enough, we continue to blur the evaporating line between the actions of the insane and those of the emotionally grounded.

It just further proves that the political environment in this country is toxic. When you get to the point that a slain child is more reason to spout your own hateful rhetoric that keeps two ideologies in enemy camps, we've *all* crossed that critical line.

Something like this demands that we all see how far we've stepped over to the other side. Since it's the only thing we have the power to fix anyway, it's critical to see how much we contributed to the problem that allowed us to get this far.

Let's break it down.

"Hyperbole is a figure of speech that uses an exaggerated or extravagant statement to create a strong emotional response. As a figure of speech it is not intended to be taken literally."

We've all used it because it's an effective tool.

When Sarah Palin and her team created the "bullseye" map, they did so using a strong graphic that was meant to stir a certain emotion... one of battle. This has become an acceptable narrative in politics, one that all sides use to varying degrees. So it probably made a lot of sense to the Palin crew to pick an easily recognizable symbol that in one powerful visual figuratively labeled those politicians as "enemies" that need to be "taken out."

Did Sarah Palin truly mean for anyone to go on a shooting rampage? Of course not. That's what makes this hyperbolic.

It was used figuratively - and effectively - to stir a strong emotion.

The problem is the violent tone of this hyperbole, which is making it harder to distinguish those who have a legitimate concern for their country and fringe wingnuts suffering from overt paranoia.

Encouraging this destructive tone can turn a figuratively loaded gun into a literal one... and that's just too dangerous to ignore.

Strong emotions are out there waiting to be stirred, which is what makes the use of this kind of propaganda so questionable. There are those who will glom onto ANY militant message because they are willing to take their anger a step forward. They are likely waiting for any excuse to make that all right.

There were those who took their discord with Congresswoman Giffords to a more literal level as she showed support for Health Care Reform, a policy that opponents have used outrageous hyperbole repeatedly to try and discredit. These angry individuals then used their opposition with her politics as justification to vandalize her office, call in death threats ... and one very disturbed individual tried to end her life.

Whether the actions of Palin and the actions of the perpetrators were connected we cannot say with any degree of authority.

BUT...

The line between violent hyperbole and bloody reality is much easier to cross when you have unapologetic rhetoric stirring up the emotions of an already angry mob.

There's only so many times you can poke an animal before it bites back.

When I was about 12 or so my brother in law got a dog that was part wolf. He got him as a puppy and it was a sweet and gentle animal that never showed aggression, even around my small nieces and nephews.

Since they didn't have a fenced backyard for the dog, appropriately named Wolf, he was restrained on a chain in the front yard of their house, which sat directly across the street from my house.

I ended up bearing frustrated witness as the neighborhood children gleefully tormented this dog who could not go beyond the chain's reach, which was initially to try and get away from them. I tried to stop them, my brother in law tried to stop them, but these children got something out of relentlessly teasing this poor dog.

Days grew into weeks, weeks grew into months and eventually Wolf became understandably angry from being constantly provoked.

They would taunt Wolf until he ran to the extent of his chain - this time *toward* them. There he'd bark ferociously and bare his teeth, but the collar literally choked him as he strained for the tormentors he never could quite reach.

The children thought this was great fun.

Until the day the chain broke.

That day all four or five of them bolted over to my house with Wolf hot on their trail. One little girl wasn't fast enough to make it beyond the porch, and she ended up with a horrible gash on her leg where Wolf tore into her.

At that point the neighborhood, who had blissfully ignored the actions of these children, decided Wolf had to be destroyed.

No one cared to teach the children how cruel their behavior was, they just wanted to punish an animal who had been pushed beyond his natural limits. Granted there was plenty of blame to go around at that point, but none of that could undo the damage that was done to that little girl's leg.

All we could do was learn from it. And what I learned is there is only so many times you can provoke something to anger for your own amusement before there are serious consequences you can't take back.

Before Obama was elected president, the NRA launched a multi-million dollar campaign against him that stirred up their base to believe he would be "the most anti-gun president ever."

Powerful words like "tyranny" and "revolution" were tossed around to emphasize their hyperbolic point which, incidentally, was a big fat lie.

Either way, the wolf was stirred.

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 2009, 23-year-old Richard Polawski killed three police officers because he feared that Obama was going to take his guns away.

The line between the hyperbole of the NRA and reality of dead police officers was crossed, with dire consequences nobody could take back.

On several different notable occasions, radio personalities and political candidates engaged in (hopefully) hyperbolic talk about saving ammunition for Obama, to resist the government in a bloodbath; a second revolution fully supported by the "second amendment right" for those citizens to oppress a "tyrannical" government...

And you get this:

And this...

And this...

And this.

It's frighteningly obvious there are those who are willing to take that next, short step over from violent hyperbole to bloody reality.

They've been stirred up by those with national influence not to "retreat" but to "RELOAD."

The anger is palpable. The hostility is stifling. And no one is immune from the vitriol.. not even an innocent child whose life ended needlessly one Saturday afternoon.

Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for the actions of Jared Loughner, who went on a crazed killing spree for possibly no other reason than he is almost unquestionably mentally ill.

But Sarah Palin IS responsible for the rhetoric she purposely chooses for her own gain. She blatantly ignores those who would act on her unapologetic use of hyperbole simply because it benefits her so well to use it. It's unethical and irresponsible, and it would be equally unethical and irresponsible of all of us not to call her on it.

Her words, which she can take back, have an effect on those fringe personalities who take figurative language seriously enough they might commit actions which can't be taken back.

John McCain was able to recognize this angry momentum during the election, where he at least tried to tone back the hateful, paranoid rhetoric that his VP candidate allowed to run unchecked... and even stoked.

For which he was promptly booed by his own supporters.

The dog is at the end of its chain, folks.

There is a powerful undertone in our current political atmosphere we would be ill-advised to dismiss as "business as usual." It is painfully and horrifying obvious that the angry, figurative hyperbole is sinking into the collective psyche of a fringe few who would take it too far.

As Saturday proved, it only takes one step to cross the line between violent hyperbole and bloody reality.

All we can do now is learn from it. We should absolutely take pause to see how we can take responsibility for our own message. Using this dangerous hyperbolic language in a highly charged atmosphere must be called into question when the emotionally driven response yields such devastating consequences.

Aren't we just are responsible for watching a fire burn, even if we didn't start it?

And why are we so blithely excusing those who toss more gasoline into it for their own political gain?

Whether we cross the line between hyperbole and reality or look the other way when someone else does, these are actions that we can't take back. And NONE of us are immune to being caught in the crossfire that is shamefully all too literal.

Where will you be the next time someone crosses this critical line? At a museum with your kids? In church on Sunday morning?

Or just picking up a few groceries at the local grocery store?

The line is growing thinner by the day, with no help from those with national influence. That's why it's up to us to choose a side.

Tune in this Saturday, January 15 between 11am CST and 1pm CST, where I hope to continue this discussion further with Hal Sparks on the Hal Sparks Radio Program.

This is not an indictment of blame... it is a discussion of reflection worth having. For all of us.

"It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble the way we talk to each other on TV." - Jon Stewart

The Power of Words.

2011-01-08T17:00:00.000-08:00

As a writer I'm quite familiar with the power of words. You can take a blank page and literally create emotion out of nothing at all. Whether you use fact or make up people, places and events, you can make someone laugh or you can reduce someone to tears. You can make someone angry and you can motivate them to act.

This is an awesome responsibility that many who have been elevated to national influence sadly either don't recognize or don't fully respect. The Bible tells us that life and death are in the power of the tongue. Since these words are that powerful, it is up to the speaker or writer of those words to know what kind of weapon he or she is ultimately wielding, otherwise utter chaos can result.

This comes all too tragically into focus after Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot point blank in the head one unassuming Saturday morning.

Her last tweet sits on her twitter page like a sad echo, where she issued an invitation for her constituents to come and speak with her in person in front of a Safeway at a busy Tucson strip mall.

"My 1st Congress on Your Corner starts now. Please stop by to let me know what is on your mind or tweet me later."

Hours later she is fighting for her life in a hospital, in critical condition from a gunshot wound to the head.

A gunman, who may or may not have been acting on his own, allegedly opened fire on the crowd gathered at this otherwise peaceful assembly. Eighteen individuals were shot, including Rep. Giffords. Six of those 18 have died, including a nine year old child and a federal judge named John Roll.

From the Youtube videos, which may or may not have been posted by the same Jared Lee Loughner, one gets the idea that he wasn't mentally stable. Obviously anyone who could brutally attack a crowd of strangers in this way is clearly many cards short of a full deck. But these videos indicate the creator's personal philosophy meandered down a crooked path all his own.

It must frustrate those finger-pointers on either side that he doesn't clearly lean either left or right, but instead seems to rocket off in space somewhere with an ideology that ultimately shows this "alleged" shooter is just a very sick, unbalanced individual.

It would be easy to dismiss this tragic crime as another nutcase seeking infamy through a high-profile assassination, which indeed may be his only true motivation for doing the things that he did.

But a devastating tornado doesn't appear out of the clear blue sky. These types of events (and personalities) feed off of a certain atmosphere.

This happened because the political environment in Arizona and in the United States was primed for it to happen. Over the past couple of years especially the clamoring of voices has grown loader, and the subsequent paranoia has risen to a fever pitch, courtesy of our political landscape.

Jared Loughner wasn't the first to make a violent, politically driven statement. And unless things change he won't be the last... OR the most violent.

Whether through violent imagery or rhetoric, we've come to accept angry or fearful hyperbole as a way to get our political points across, and this has been especially true since President Obama took office.

Let's look for a moment at the political atmosphere of Arizona.

In 2010 Sarah Palin, known for her "don't retreat: RELOAD" advice to her "conservative" counterparts, created a map of 20 Democratic House representatives who voted for the health care bill in those states Republicans "carried" in 2008. These representatives "in enemy territory" were marked with distinct crosshairs as those who needed to be removed from office.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords was one of those 20.

She was also one of those 20 who understood the kinds of consequences that kind of subliminal suggestion could render, especially after her office was vandalized and she received threats for supporting Health Care Reform.

Giffords' own opponent in 2010 offered an event in June to help remove her from office, by "getting on target" and shooting a fully automatic M16.

The late judge John Roll also faced violent death threats after presiding over an immigration case in 2009, saying, "We should kill him. He should be dead."

Today he is.

Even an Arizona pastor made headlines by praying against Obama, hoping for his death so that he could go to hell. The next day one of his parishioners showed up at Obama's town hall event sporting a pistol and a assault rifle.

Thankfully nothing happened. Then.

Other US political extremists like Sharron Angle hinted at some Second Amendment Remedies toward a tyrannical government - i.e. one where she didn't win an election.

Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann made the point she wanted her constituents "armed and dangerous" to fight against cap and trade legislation.

This woman has now landed a post on the Intelligence Committee, and will oversee such critical government agencies like the CIA.

In the wake of 9/11 Ann Coulter's foreign policy was to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

And don't even get me started on Glenn Beck.

Suffice it to say, all these media darlings have traded responsibility for sensationalism... and today our violent climate paved the way for an unhinged individual to wreak havoc on an unsuspecting public. That was the match.

That he had easy access to guns like a semi-automatic 9mm Glock pistol was the powder keg.

For those of us who understood how this subtle brainwashing of our society was creating this atmosphere of violence, we faced many critics today who said we "politicized" this tragic event with our own left-wing hatred.

First of all, this was an assassination attempt on a political figure. This was already "politicized." No matter how these same provocative folks want to "tone things back" and "wait for evidence" now, the actions of the shooter were already political in nature. This wasn't some random crime.

Secondly, what you saw was not some knee-jerk reaction of blind hatred. It was righteous indignation that said enough's enough. It should not, and does not have to, come to this.

We pointed out that words, especially incendiary ones, have power. And we have evidence to back up that claim. The road thus far has already been paved with blood and violence as provocateurs like Palin, Beck, et al feed into this insurrectionist mentality for their own personal gain.

Lest we forget Bill O'Reilly took it upon himself to launch a very public personal crusade against "baby-killer" George Tiller, using very visual, violent language to get the biggest bang for his proverbial buck.

In 2009 Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in his own church by a right-wing fanatic.

Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin and their ilk may not have fired the gun, or even *truly* wanted anyone dead, but these powerful words and this dangerous climate of "kill em all and let God sort em out" paranoia definitely contributed to the events of today.

"You're just trying to suppress our speech!"

Like I've said before... freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of responsibility of speech. You can say what you like, but at least have the decency to take responsibility for what you say.

There comes a point in time when you have to decide if what you say is worth the consequences, such as a bloodbath that ended the life of a little girl, to even say it at all.

Instead, Palin and her camp are busy scrubbing their hands clean of any accountability, and tried to excuse away the "bullseyes" on her crosshairs map.

This after she had proudly called them what they were on a self-congratulatory tweet in the wake of the Democrats losing the House.

This action in and of itself proves that Palin realizes, albeit too late, that her words really do have power - if only to be used against her. Which, as usual, seems to be her primary concern. I've seen nothing in her character that indicates she'll take any kind of responsibility for the things she said or the climate she's helped to create.

She and those like her are going to bury their rhetoric under insincere condolences and blank, head in the sand denial of any culpability in creating this dangerous atmosphere.

Instead of taking away from this tragedy that there is something she and others like her could do to prevent it from happening again, they will instead try to continue to fight for their right to say, irresponsibly, anything at all.

That is why it is up to us, to you and me, to take discourse to the next level. To recognize the power of these words and refuse to allow them to sink to these inexcusable depths again.

Don't let what happened today be in vain.

Realize the awesome power of words and treat them, always, with the diligent oversight they deserve.

One Nation, Under the Gun.

2011-01-05T02:10:00.000-08:00

Sunday, January 2, 2011, a 46 year old mother lost her life to a single bullet wound to the head. She was found dead in her Ohio home, face down on her living room floor. The weapon that killed her was a .22 caliber rifle that had been given as a Christmas gift to the perpetrator.

The person that fired the gun?

Her ten year old son, who reportedly went to a neighbor's house where he admitted he killed his own mother.

Apparently the victim's 15 year old daughter was in the home at the time of the shooting, and claims the motive was that her ten year old brother did not want to bring firewood inside the home. Apparently the mother and son quarreled until the boy went into his bedroom, retrieved his gun, brought it out into the living room and shot his mom.

The lawyer has entered a "denial" plea on behalf of the boy, which is the juvenile equivalent of "not guilty" from adult court.

The lawyer says that boy understands the possible consequences of these actions "as best as any 10-year-old boy can."

There are so many things so tragically wrong with this story it's hard to enumerate them, but the hardest pill for me to swallow personally is that this child was given a weapon at such a tender age.

According to reports, this had been a Christmas gift from his late grandfather, but the exact Christmas it was given remains in question. Since the grandfather has now passed away, it is very possible the gun belonged to the boy as early as last year, when he was no more than nine.

I've never had a gun, never fired a gun, but if one bullet managed to find its bullseye I'm even more convinced this is a weapon this child had for more than a few weeks and definitely fired prior to this tragic event.

In Ohio where this family lives it is illegal to provide a firearm to a person under the age of 18, but that didn't prevent this boy from having access to one, which was armed, when he was TEN YEARS OLD.

In good ol Ah-merica, guns and kids go hand in hand in a family tradition.

Ironically, though he was allowed to own a gun and fire a gun without society blinking an eye, the legal system will treat him like what he really is - a child. He will not be charged with murder, like an adult would have been. He instead will be charged with delinquency, being a delinquent child by reason of having committed intentional murder.

The legal system seems to understand that this child is not old enough to understand the repercussions of his actions like an adult would be able to do.

WHICH IS WHY YOU MUST BE AN ADULT TO OWN A GUN.

Our culture did this to this family, folks... and this child is going to pay the price for our impudence.

We live in a pro-gun, pro-violence society that teaches our children we have the distinctly American right to kill, and we have a right to do it from childhood.

It's our legacy.

Just say no to sex, but give Billy a WEAPON to celebrate the birth of our Lord, because Jesus knows there's a squirrel or wild turkey out there that would like mighty good on the wall.

Living in Texas my kids have been exposed to guns by their peers. They've shot guns, they've gone hunting.

But never EVER would either of them been allowed to own a gun, especially when they were still children who did not properly understand impulse control.

Hell, they can't have a gun in the house NOW, even though both are of a legal age to do it.

These are the rules I set because I'm ever mindful of the risk that comes with these weapons. I'm the one who has to make these rules, because I'm the adult who understands the implications of having access to a loaded gun.

The Facts About Kids and Guns:

# Every day, about 75 American children are shot. Most recover — 15 do not.

# The majority of fatal accidents involving a firearm occur in the home.

# Gunshot wounds are the single most common cause of death for women in the home, accounting for nearly half of all homicides and 42 percent of suicides.

# An adolescent is twice as likely to commit suicide if a gun is kept in the home.

# More teenage boys in America die from gunfire than from car accidents.

# Gunshot wounds are now the leading cause of death for teenage boys in America (white, African-American, urban, and suburban).

Read more on FamilyEducation: http://life.familyeducation.com/school-safety-month/violence/29712.html#ixzz1A9WRm5eI

Despite all this, it's reported that nearly 30% of teenage boys own at least one firearm.

And despite THAT... when something happens like this tragedy in Ohio, we have the audacity to be surprised.

We created this reality by this idea that Guns, God and America are some kind of holy trinity. Gun laws interfere with gun rights; which somehow get skirted on a regular basis for there to be these kind of statistics in the first place. It's illegal to give a child under 18 a firearm, but that is how at least one American family celebrated Christmas.

But God forbid anyone openly criticize our country's dependence on guns and what it's doing to our children.

God forbid we try to level any kind of accountability on our society for these tragic events, one that created an atmosphere where a child could impulsively kill his mom just because he didn't want to do a chore.

These are our American rights, by God, and we must defend them at all cost.

Tell that to a child whose youth has been ripped away from him for one moment he can't ever take back.

Tell that to the family whose world was blown open with the sound of a gunshot.

More importantly, tell that to the next 9 year old who tells his grandpa all he really wants is a shotgun for Christmas.

When's it going to end?

When is it going to be enough?

When is one life lost one too many?

Only we can answer those questions... as parents, as a society... as Americans.

Don't let this happen again.

Let's Talk about Sex (Toys)

2010-12-30T14:38:00.000-08:00

Recently a commercial aired locally about the new Trojan Tri-Phoria vibrator - or, rather "massager." The commercial itself is a hoot and a half, with a new bride getting some of these special toys as bridal shower gifts....

Well here. You watch it for yourself.

This commercial makes me giggle for several reasons.

1.) That this woman is getting what are traditional known as marital aids *before the wedding... by three close girlfriends who no doubt know what her man can and *can't* do.

2.) That the groom at the end is ever so excited that they got more than one.

3.) It's not available for sale in my state.

Actually it's not available for sale in six states: Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kansas and Virginia.

I find this both kinda funny and extremely sad.

Especially when I open up an article today on a drive-thru "pleasure" shop in Alabama. In this state where you are not required to have a permit for a GUN, these business owners have had to jump through legal loopholes in order to make sexual enhancement aids available for sale for those poor, sexually frustrated Alabamans. The only reason they can? Their customers have to sign a document saying they "have difficulty with sexual fulfillment" in order to skirt an anti-obscenity law enacted in 1998, which prohibits the sale of such items.

Turns out a "free market" isn't quite so free. Those who clamor for smaller government only mean smaller government for their tax bracket... not obstructive laws built on nothing more than a puritan-religious philosophy that says the enjoyment of sex is bad... especially if you're a woman.

Let's get real about this stuff, folks. Web MD puts the figure at somewhere around 70% for a woman to require clitoral stimulation in order to achieve an orgasm. That means intercourse alone traditionally doesn't get the job done. In fact, there was a time in our not so distant past when women had orgasmless sex just because they believed that such a thing did not exist for them.

They were not allowed to experiment with lovers (good girls just don't) or their own bodies (*gasp*), so they basically were conditioned to believe that the man got to reach his finish line at the end of every lovemaking session, but in the end having sex as a woman was her duty.

If you want me to define obscene... that would be it.

Thank God for the Sexual Revolution, which blew the doors off of such conventional, anti-feminist thinking.

Thanks to birth control women could actually experiment with different lovers AND we were finally given permission to explore the dynamics of our own bodies. We ladies finally had orgasms, and figured out we kinda liked em.

Sex was fun! Sex was pleasurable! And we didn't need a man to get us there!

If you ask me, I think that's what freaks out men the most. That, and that we could have any spot on our body that would rival their phallic symbol of superiority.

In the womb, very early on before the genitalia is completely formed, there is no real distinction between a penis and a clitoris. This means that the clitoris is, biologically speaking, on the same playing field. Not so surprisingly this is where the woman gets the most sexual arousal. I know you guys want to think your love toy is the only one she needs to make her eyes roll back in her head, but you really gotta stop worshipping at the altar of the penis.

Imagine if we touched everywhere on your body but directly where you required the most stimulation. How frustrated would YOU be? Why, you'd have to fill out a form at an Alabama drive thru sex shop!

Embrace the entire wonderland of her body with other appendages you've got going for you, and stop being so afraid of nifty equipment that will really get her motor revved.

It adds a bit of pepper to the gumbo, ifyaknowhatimsayin.

"Ginger! How can you even talk about such things and call yourself a Christian?"

Simple. I understand something you clearly don't. God loves us the same way he loves the dolphins. If sex was only made for procreation, we'd be nothing more than dogs in heat - we'd only have sex when the conditions were ripe to conceive. But he didn't do that. He gave us sex for pleasure, but man (and religion) has turned it into something sinful and dirty. What better way to control a large group of people than take something that is so biologically natural and attach loads of guilt and shame to it?

I find it interesting that mankind has no problem attaching such mortal emotions like wrath, anger and vengeance to a God who made us in his image... but to imagine God honoring or at least understanding those things that brings us pleasure immediately puts a stick up everyone's butt.

Newsflash: There's no verse anywhere in the Bible that specifically denounces masturbation as a sin. There are a few "iffy" verses *maybe*, but I'm sorry... you religious types have skated by on "iffy" verses for too long.

You may think you do but you don't get to make up sins as you go along, interpreting things your way just so you can oppress behavior you don't understand.

And you certainly don't get to make laws about it, based on your own narrow religious definition.

So that leaves the very broad definition of what is obscene.

I'm not exactly sold that we need to legislate on this matter any more than we legislate on religion. It's much too individual to govern. What's obscene to me might not be obscene to you, and vice versa.

Consider it wasn't all that long ago when bare chair legs were considered to "incite lust," and thereby fell under the definition of obscene.

Shouldn't we be allowed to make this decision for ourselves? How can you decry the government as a "nanny" state when you depend on these laws to legislate what you consider the immorality of folks you don't even know?

As long as people are not physically endangered, I don't see the problem with the distribution of sexual enhancement aids among consenting adults.

To paraphrase Elle Woods: Sex "gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people just don't shoot their husbands."

So let us have our orgasms, guys. You might even find you will get a few more of your own. ;)

We Fail as a Society...

2010-12-30T01:30:00.000-08:00

...If you can read this article, and not blink an eye at the fact that some random - and trigger happy- Joe has access to and willingness to use an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Lemme surmise.

Dude in my hometown literally mows down a few of his neighbor's dogs with an AK-47, and initially the meat of this story, though the dogs were killed, is that his only FIRM charge is discharging his weapon within city limits. He *may* be charged with cruelty to animals.

Now, I'm not necessarily anti-gun but I don't see the need of owning an AK-47 in the middle of Abilene, Texas. Especially when your biggest threat seems to be a few neighborhood pets, dogs that witnesses say weren't even aggressive.

My problem, and I think it's a significant one , is that this guy uses this situation (he says to protect his kids from these dogs) to break out said semi-automatic weapon.

I'm guessing if you have an AK-47, you likely have other guns as well. Odds are you don't use an AK-47 to hunt or carry around with you for self defense, you use it to collect.

Yet this guy immediately goes to the extreme to exact the most damage... and the best our law can do is say, "Shame on you for firing your boom-boom stick in the city."

Yeah, I get it. You need to "investigate" to see if the dogs were attacking the children to know whether or not the guy was justified... but still. Spraying animals with automatic or semi-automatic gunfire definitely fits *my* criteria as animal cruelty no matter how you slice it.

So I'm at a loss, really.

Like I said, I'm not anti-gun... but there are many times I am quite dubious about the gun *owner.* Mostly because I don't understand the need to personally own loaded weapons of this caliber. Its purpose is right there in the name. It's an *assault rifle.* Forgive me for being a little wary that makes you quite capable of *assault.*

It immediately gives me pause that this weapon was even allowed into a house with small children, but that's another topic altogether.

A weapon of this sort is a tool of carnage, period. The mindset that would justify its use that you could even buy it - and I'm assuming it's not cheap - just makes me wonder about you as a person.

Yeah, I get it. You ain't messin' around. Kill em all and let God sort em out. Oorah!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I'd never feel the pent-up aggression to want to mow someone down with one of these things if it came to a survivalist situation, like say... oh I dunno...a zombie apocalypse. I can even see myself going all Rambo even if I was just really, really pissed off. I've had my dogs shot at by neighbors with BB-guns just because they barked too much and I was ready to tear their heads off.

*I get it.*

It's a Die Hard world. Yippee Ki-Yay and all that jazz.

But this is Abilene-eff'n-Texas. We're talking seven murders per year for 2008 and 2009. Our murder statistics are 0.67 times that of the National Average. In fact, since our forcible rape stats are 1.67 times the National Average, maybe all the women of this town should be given permanent access to an AK-47... but I'd advise you men to make a mass exodus once a month if we did.

Anything that even hints at the phrase "automatic" means there's not a whole lot wiggle room between "think" and "do."

These are weapons designed for war, and I know some of you think we're in one but precious, we're just not. No one is out to take your guns away and make you give daisies to muggers.

Except maybe Jesus... but that too is another topic altogether.

This means you won! You're more dangerous than the bad guy. Yay, you!

Now the only real question is... how do we know we can be safe from you guys?

Apparently our four-legged friends aren't. Apparently it's fairly easy to go from having a clean record to blowing away neighborhood pets in the space of an afternoon.

I'm kinda of the mind you should have to report that you have these types of weapons. Kind of like the map of sex offenders. Not to say that you're criminals or anything, but I think it's in the public's best interest to know where you people live so we know you're not going to blow away Fluffy for taking a piss on your lawn.

And hey, this scenario works for you too. What better crime deterrent could there be than have it broadcast to the public you're sitting on an eff'n ARSENAL?

See? I'm the kind of liberal who is willing to work with you on this.

I'd just like to understand you guys. Because thanks to news stories like this one... I just kinda don't.

***Update***

The shooter in question has indeed been charged with animal cruelty. The dogs that were murdered were pit bulls (big surprise), and the shooter claims that they were mauling his children, though eyewitnesses say that was not how it went down. The children needed no medical treatment for any injuries, and an investigation is ongoing.***

A footnote... five guns were confiscated from the shooter's house. FIVE. I'm just sayin.

I Have No Tolerance of Intolerance

2010-12-27T13:57:00.000-08:00

As a bleeding heart liberal it should go without saying that I disdain any behavior that would oppress the beliefs or the opinions of anyone else, even if I don't agree. I think our first step toward bigotry is the ignorance and intolerance of any belief system that we immediately shun as "less than" what we already believe, or, in many cases, not believe.

Crazy as it sounds, though, even in what you'd consider the safe, warm waters of liberalism - which by its very definition should WELCOME all beliefs and opinions - I have faced much intolerance for my own Christian beliefs.

In fact, being a Christian Liberal I often face opposition and suppression from both sides. The religious right wants to denounce my faith as worthless (i.e. Ann Coulter) and the anti-religious left wants to paint me as a superstitious moron.

Meanwhile I spend most of my time trying to wrestle Jesus from the clutches of the hypocrites in my own Christian camp to point out how he personified all the moral standards on the left.

In other words, I turn over tables in the temple and hang out with "sinners," and not so surprisingly I make enemies on the right. This doesn't surprise me nearly as much as the flak I get from the left - especially when I'm a pro-faith, anti-religious Christian who doesn't preach conversion.

I help moderate the Ustream chatroom for Hal Sparks during his weekly radio appearances. Both of these shows, the Stephanie Miller Show on Wednesdays and his own radio show on Saturday, are political in nature and unabashedly left-leaning. Needless to say the crowd they draw are what you would consider liberal.

Many of whom are not Christian, which is fine, but want to turn the chat room into a stand-up comedy routine against anything at all Jesus related - which is not fine. I usually bite my lip and allow it - although it skates on very thin ice on our "no disrespect" rule. On Christmas Eve, however, I put my foot down. Just as I wouldn't allow these same people to make fun of Jewish or Muslim religions on their high holy days, I wasn't about to allow people to mock Jesus on Christmas Eve. To me, this was not just skating on the thin ice of disrespect, it was a virtual slap in the face to people who hold these beliefs but never say anything for fear of being mocked by a mob.

Unfortunately in the liberal sphere, this is a very real possibility. (Thank you ever so much, Bill Maher.)

"Well, Ginger, you're just trying to censor me."

Just because you *can* say something doesn't mean you should. If what you say doesn't benefit the conversation AND makes someone else feel bad... then maybe you should keep your mouth shut.

I, as a believer, am especially sensitive to the hateful intolerance exhibited that basically said, "You're an idiot because you don't believe what I do." This is the same thing that makes me sensitive to those from other religions who get persecuted from those guys on the other side of the political aisle.

It's no more acceptable when we do it than when they do it.

IN FACT.. it's really no different than those religious people who want to browbeat people with a Bible to tell them they are going to hell if they don't change their ways. Each believes that they are right, and the feelings of people get tread underfoot of this egomaniacal need to be righter than the other guy.

It's intolerance on both sides and it's turned a simple idea - religious freedom - into a battleground. Instead of allowing this to be a personal matter, we've turned it into free-for-all that says we can degrade anyone who doesn't share our own personal beliefs, especially if we don't subscribe to any. We preach against intolerance for those who would dare protest a mosque, but then want to silence anyone who has a religious thought under snide "jokes" that essentially seek to do the same thing: silence that which we do not believe so we don't ever have to hear it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion.

We are an all-inclusive society that allows this to be decided by the individual, and that should be protected. This starts with a simple respect that these beliefs are deeply personal and are not fair-game for a joke.

Anymore than being any other religion, sexual orientation, gender or even political affiliation.

I am a tolerant Christian. I know it seems like an oxymoron, but it's not. Jesus was an all-inclusive, tolerant chap who got into lots of trouble with the religious leaders of his generation because he would dare to hang out with hookers and tax collectors. He didn't give a fig what they had to say about it, he was living the example of love that literally wrote the book on how we Christians should treat EVERYONE, not just those who believe like we do.

I realize that a ton of yahoos who subscribe to ChristianityTM have run his name through the muck, much more than the likes of intolerant asses like Bill Maher could ever hope to do, BUT.... trust me when I say this there are many people who subscribe to the faith who take this call to love and embrace the world very seriously.

The only intolerance we have is of intolerance itself - in *all* of its forms.

No matter what god (or not) you choose to worship, I will not make fun of something that is sacred to you, even if I do not share your same views. I'm going to be empathetic that your beliefs (or lack thereof) are just as important to you as mine are to me, and show you that simple courtesy.

And until we can all do that, kids, we can't lift our noses in the air with some kind of self-imposed superiority that we're more ethical and moral than "the other guys." We're no better just because our "intolerance" happens to be the "politically correct" one.

It's still intolerance. And it's still ignorant. And it's hateful.

And it's got to stop.

The True Religion of America

2010-12-06T08:05:00.000-08:00

In case you were wondering, it's not Christianity. Nor is it Islam... Judaism... Buddhism, or any other typically accepted "isms" that revolve around any other mystical deities.

In fact the god of America is quite real. You can see it... you can touch it... more importantly you can taste it.

It's food.

Turn on any TV - the outspoken clergy of this particular religion - and you're going to see ads, ads and more ads about food. Fast food, greasy food, cheesy food and all those sweets that will bring ultimate joy and fulfillment back into your life.

When you have a candy named "Bliss," you know they're not even trying to hide what they're doing.

Consequently, every day millions and millions of Americans dig deep into their pockets to shell out their tithes - to Coca Cola, to Wendy's, to Pizza Hut, to Burger King and to the ultimate mecca to which billions reverently flock to... McDonalds.

We have TV shows that feature outrageous excess as "entertainment", and fairs the country over will deep fry anything from candy bars to Coke.

We even found a way to deep fry our Thanksgiving turkeys.

As a result the last 10 years have seen a tremendous spike in our obesity rates. In 2001 only Mississippi showed a prevalence of its citizens having a BMI - or Body Mass Index - of over 25%, which is considered overweight. In 2009 that number had dramatically risen to 25 states, including such northern states as Maine and Washington. Even more startling, nine additional states reported a prevalence of over 30%, which is considered to be obese.

Needless to say, it's an epidemic. But God help you if you dare try to tell our emotionally-stunted nation they have to change these destructive habits.

Actor/comedian/musician/activist Hal Sparks supports a movement called "Meatless Mondays." What this does is suggest - merely suggest - that for one day a week you cut out the meat. The theory behind the movement is that forfeiting meat just for one day can improve your health as well as the environment.

It's not telling anyone they have to give up their beloved meat for the rest of their life. It's just one simple day, and it's nothing anyone is forcing anyone to do.

It's just. A suggestion.

But you wouldn't know it from the way Hal's Twitter and Facebook feed is attacked by a bunch of snarky trolls making fun of this movement.

For the record, telling him that you're going to eat a steak to celebrate Meatless Monday doesn't make you funny - it just makes you a jerk. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. Believe it or not you still have the freedom to decide that for yourself... just as anyone else who opts NOT to eat meat has the choice to make that decision as well.

The often strident reaction speaking out against something so easy and so voluntary never fails to surprise me. I never got it until I finally realized the god-like connection between Americans and food. Apparently you just don't get between Americans and their true religion.

The diet industry succeeds in this because it tells us that we can eat what we want and still lose weight if we just take a pill, drink a shake, buy a gadget or device. And if they don't tell you those fairy tales, they often mislead you to believe that you too can lose 100 pounds in just ten weeks to be just like those folks on The Biggest Loser.

All you have to do is pay money into the trainer's pocket and she'll make it happen for you too.

Only she can't, because it's unrealistic, and it doesn't do anything more than feed into why you had to worship something like food in the first place.

We Americans are trained from our Happy Meals and sippy cups full of Kool-Aid that food makes us happy... especially the fattening, sweet stuff. We build entire holidays around how we eat from the time we are born. Name one major holiday that doesn't revolve around food, drink or excess in this nation.

Spoil yourself. Indulge. You deserve it.

This is why diets typically fail and we just keep getting fatter and fatter. It's the ultimate Devil vs. Angel on our shoulders. We have the TV telling us two very different things: you can't live without Mountain Dew and your Big Mac, but you're too fat to ever truly be happy.

Don't even THINK about having a TV show where you can be in love and happy.

Naturally we are going to worship the part of this sadistic equation that makes us feel good... or at the very least numbs us from feeling bad. And we'll fight to the death anyone who dares to take that away.

You want to see folks get up in arms about being controlled by a "nanny" state, just try even hinting that they can't have their deep fried, sugar coated yummy lil bits of heaven we Americans truly worship.

In November, Sarah Palin decided to launch a protest against this so-called nanny state by bringing 200 sugar cookies TO A SCHOOL because she didn't appreciate their new rule limiting the amount of sweets allowed, which would then in turn somehow reduce birthday and holiday celebrations.

Evidently in America you can't have any sort of celebration without "goodies" loaded with sugar.

This is where her voice must be heard for justice and liberty. She's learned well from the Clergy of Consumerism that you give people what they want while telling them what they want to hear and you will have a following of staunch devotees willing to worship at your altar even if you spout complete and utter nonsense.

Consider those right wing commentators with a burr in their britches that our children are being encouraged to eat healthier by that scary black lady in the White House. Apparently just hearing the name Obama will send some of these folks into a seizure where their common sense is paralyzed from the brain down. So naturally folks like Glenn Beck have employed the ever-so-effective hyperbole, scaring their faithful followings with the thought one day they'd be imprisoned for indulging in their sacred worship of all things deep fried.

Talk about ironic.

This group getting their knickers in a twist about a so-called nanny state are often the same bunch of yahoos who vote against the real rights of others based on behavior that 1. doesn't affect them and 2. has no real ill-effect, except for in their little closed-up minds swimming around in animal fat and sugar.

Don't take away my french fries! But ban gay marriage because it hurts kids.

Just imagine the kind of stroke someone like Palin would have if someone came to a public school and handed out 200 CONDOMS to help combat teen pregnancy and disease. Yet somehow giving cookies to schoolkids in a state with a 27.4 obesity rate is just good ol' American freedom.

MEANWHILE... no one wants to pay extra insurance for the health problems that are the consequences of such behavior. Not to mention they vilify any efforts to make health care more accessible to all because THAT is somehow taking our choices away.

Yeah. It's taking away your choice to die quickly.

It's taking away your choice to be made numb and dumb by your diet, keeping you easier to control by those who would want to control you.

Consider a FOX NEWS report from 2009 that said a high-fat diet may actually make you stupid and lazy.

And yet these folks at Fox News are the same ones telling you that you shouldn't be listening to anyone that tells you to eat healthier (i.e. forsake that high-fat diet.)

Interesting, no?

So since today is Monday, I encourage you to reconsider your diet and think about going meatless just for the day. It may sound boring like you won't have enough to eat but trust me when I tell you that it opens up an entirely new way to think about the food that you eat. You can try new foods you've never tried before, or cook old favorites in a new way.

Here are some recipes to consider, recipes I've found and made to combat years of my own food-worship and subsequent obesity:

Cajun Chili Cups

Chili Verde

Sweet Potato Fritters with Smokey Pinto Beans

Kickin' Fiesta Quinoa

Creamy Vegan Corn Chowder

Skillet Gnocchi with Chard and White Beans

As you can see it's entirely possible for forsake the meat for 24 hours and still eat well. Plus it can often be cheaper and healthier than all that high-fat stuff. You'll feel better and may even be a little smarter.

If not, you can always go back to the Church of Fast Food tomorrow.

I'm sure Sarah Palin will be more than happy to send you some cookies.

The War on Christmas

2010-12-04T01:41:00.000-08:00

As each year marches on the grumblings of dissent grow louder about the alleged “war” on Christmas. Not exactly sure how someone can war on your ability to believe what you want to believe BUT... it finds its way to the headlines (and has even sold a few books about us "scary, 'godless' liberals) because the media loves to fuel this dissent. Fire up the audience by using these hyperbolic words to stir up the faithful, who grow less and less tolerant of the generalization of a religious holiday, and then sit back and watch the fireworks.

While it might be entertaining to those pushing us around this virtual little chess board, I find it all rather a waste of energy. To argue whether or not people (particularly the government or laws) are not displaying the proper religious diligence for a federally approved religious holiday is not only hypocrisy of the most outrageous kind... it is a prime example of how appearances mean more to the average “Main Street” American than actual content.

I know I’m going to lose some folks with that one, but bear with me.

Every year Christmas gets bigger and flashier and loses more of its original intent underneath all the pomp and circumstance. Just because one puts a nativity out on their yard along with Santa and his reindeer doesn’t mean that he is truly reverent of what this holiday is supposed to represent… any more than the folks who never darken a church doorway more than the couple of days a year. What these are, are traditions. They have nothing to do with the heart of Christmas.

In a country that promises religious freedom it *makes sense* that we (and by we I mean the federal government) incorporate all the holidays that happen to surround Christmas day – which I reiterate (because it's important) is the only federally approved holiday of the bunch. To pay face value to the other holidays by using the more generic “Happy Holidays” doesn’t mean anything more than recognizing that despite with historical revisionists may tell you – the United States is not exclusively a Christian nation and, by its very own constitution, allows religious matters as something best left to the individual and their creator (or not) of choice.

Case in point. I used to work in Los Angeles in the entertainment field. Around the last two weeks of December things pretty well dried up around town because a majority of the big wigs in that particular field happened to be Jewish. My boss, who maintained business relationships with all the major players in Tinsel Town, had two lists for her Christmas cards based on nothing more than common courtesy. One would be the more traditional “Merry Christmas” list, for those whose faith more closely aligned with the Christian faith. The other list was a more generic “Happy Holidays” list, for those whose faiths (or lack thereof) would not be excluded by the Christ-part of Christmas.

My boss, who was brought up in the Christian faith, was actually demonstrating what I felt was the more Christian POV when it came to sending out these holiday greetings. The Jesus Christ of the Bible was not a man of exclusion OR offense. He didn’t require or demand people shared his beliefs, he simply lived them… and that was how he converted other people.

He wasn't afraid to love people where they were, as they were... which... I kinda think is the whole point of Christmas.

For some reason, however, American “Christians” have long since missed this message. They are determined to change laws that do not align with their particular faith, as if even existing in an environment that does not goose step along with their beliefs somehow invalidates the belief itself.

It's like they have to completely ignore (or hide and oppress) anything that doesn't fit in their narrow world view.

Quite UN-Christian when you think about it.

As long as Christmas exists in the heart of one person – the real one, not the economic glut of excess it has become – then Christmas exists. If Jesus is the reason for your season, then spectacular. What better way to celebrate his birth than to spend your Christmas season attempting to follow his kind and loving example? That same Jesus would reach out and embrace those who do not share the same view and extend that same love, mercy, tolerance and acceptance to all because that’s the step toward his ultimate goal of “peace on earth, good will to man”.

It's showing respect for the beliefs of others and finding that by doing so our own beliefs are then respected. It's one gift that honors the man the holiday was based on AND we can all do it at no charge.

WWJD?

Let's not forget... Jesus was Jewish. Odds are he was celebrating Hanukkah, not decorating any trees or cutting in line at Walmart to buy Sarah Palin's newest book for Aunt Edna.

Only in Ah-merica will we find this ridiculous either/or mentality to be a battlefield, where conflict is encouraged and fear reigns supreme that your faith will be somehow lessened just because someone says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas."

I feel sorry for you that your faith is that weak, personally.

Historically there have been those who have been physically and horribly persecuted for their beliefs and yet held onto those beliefs anyway. They celebrated Christ – and not JUST his birth – and prayed to God when it risked their very lives to do so.

We live in a country where we are free to celebrate this holiday in whatever manner we choose. We get to sing hymns and pray and light candles and read the Bible to our children without any fear of legal retribution. We even get a federal day off in recognition of this holy day, which is a lot more than some other folks get, whose celebrations (while still legally allowed) are a lot more low key.

Yet somehow, they manage to celebrate with all the sincerity and reverence they have to give. These celebrations, which can even pre-date Christmas, aren't lessened or invalidated by the belief of anyone else. In their holiday and their beliefs, a challenging position is not war, and they don’t waste a single minute of their celebration worrying how a bunch of strangers don’t give a fly about what is inherently so personal anyway.

If that is the war against Christmas, I hate to break it to ya. They’re winning.

So Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and all that implies, whatever you celebrate. May you find the peace of the season in your church of choice, in your family of choice, in your life of choice and in your heart.

Government optional. (as it should be)

Willow Palin and the Age of Accountability

2010-11-17T10:28:00.000-08:00

Yesterday another Palin kid made headlines when her obscene rant against another classmate of the Palin clan included the word "faggot."

Reaction was swift and often harsh, which drew people to defend Willow's faux pas with the outcry, "She's just a child!" These butted against the equally vocal charges about Palin's parenting that such a debacle could even take place.

"Willow Palin is a child," charges one columnist. "She is not fair game."

He then goes on to try and make a point that this exchange should be treated as an opportunity to get kids to think about how they relate to each other, because this kind of thing is commonplace among so many kids who interchangeably use the words gay or f*ggot for bad; and that use of this homophobic word doesn't necessarily denote homophobia itself.

He also goes on to say that it should not be used as an indictment against Sarah Palin herself as a parent.

He's wrong on most counts.

First of all, Willow Palin is fair game because she is a public figure. Her mother, for all her whining otherwise, has consistently paraded her children as walking, talking billboards for her commonality to Republican/small-town "soccer moms" everywhere. These kids underscore her "pro-life", small-town, conservative "family values".

They're even starring in their own "reality" show, which means in our mixed up media they are now "celebrities" themselves. And like teen celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, their behavior is going to draw public criticism, whether right or wrong, when said behavior takes a turn for the worse.

Second of all, whether she's sixteen or not there is no age on accountability for doing things that are wrong. If you mess up, you suffer the consequences. That's how you learn right from wrong.

I'm reminded of a story I heard from a lady in California who used to regularly ride the public bus system. One day she sat next to another woman and her daughter, who was scribbling liberally on the side of the bus with her crayons. When the storyteller in question tried to point out the child's mistake to the mother, the mother brushed it off with, "She's just a baby," as if that excused her inexcusable behavior.

Which brings us to point number three: the indictment against Sarah Palin's parenting.

Now, I'm the mother of two sons; one 20 and one who is 18. They don't always do what I want them to do. They are complete individuals who, for better or worse, make their own decisions about things and suffer the consequences accordingly. When my 16 year old son got caught carrying weed at school, he ended up being arrested and dealing with the fallout.

I, as a person who has never smoked a joint in my life and have had a strict no-drug policy in my home, did the best that I could to deter him from said behavior but he made his own choices and grew from the mistake accordingly.

He made it to 18 without repeating the offense again.

As a parent I understand that we can't raise perfect kids because we ourselves are not perfect. In a lot of ways we become nothing more than guides once these kids hit a certain age because as pre-adults they are naturally testing their boundaries to discover their own individuality. This manifests itself in how they dress, whom they befriend and date and how they test the societal waters around them.

HOWEVER...

When it comes to how our kids treat each other, that is very much a mirror into how we have raised our kids to interact with the world. Any kind of bigotry is learned behavior, as is lack of empathy to another person - which is what these bigoted words represent.

Using homophobic words *does* indicate a certain amount of accepted homophobia in their environment and in our society at large. Just like saying, "You run/cry/hit/act like a girl" indicates a certain underlying sexism that says it is bad to be a girl (which is where the whole "f*g" as an insult to a man's masculinity" stems from).

This is why it SHOULD be corrected, no matter how young the offender. That is how you create change - by learning how these attitudes take root in our society. Kids are going to say it because maybe they don't know any better, which is why it is up to the parents - who should know better - to intercede.

When my kids began the ever-so-short-lived habit of saying, "That's so gay" in the pejorative - I, as a parent, took notice of this behavior and immediately got involved to show them how bigoted and hateful this kind of speech was. They do not use words like the N word or the F word or any other variety of social epithets because they were taught from the crib that this behavior was completely unacceptable, disrespectful and hurtful to others.

I consider this one of our core family values. (Yep. We "libs" have em too.)

In fact my 20 year old actually had trouble reading classics like Huckleberry Finn thanks to the constant use of some of these lightening-rod words.

I didn't wait till they were 16 to point out this behavior was wrong, or let it linger while they were children simply because they were children. They were taught from the time they could talk.

Because of this my kids know that they can curse a blue streak around me and I won't correct them, but if they use abusive language toward anyone I'll come down on them like the wrath of God itself.

If I caught my kid doing what Willow Palin did there would have been immediate intervention and retribution, up to and including an apology to the kids in question and gay people as a whole.

And I would have done that without having the additional pressure of being a "celebrity" who has to protect any kind of public image.

It's called "parenting", and that this kind of behavior is brushed aside with, "She doesn't usually use this kind of language, she was just defending the family," kind of BS means that there is a serious lack of accountability being taught as a result. Especially when any legitimate criticism against her behavior is immediately regarded as a biased "attack" on the Palin family.

What exactly does that teach any other 16 year old who uses this hateful word casually?

Brushing it aside, saying she's just a kid, no more helps create change than the very behavior critics like this columnist are attacking.

The columnist was right about one point; this is the perfect opportunity to use this exchange to teach our children - including Willow Palin - that this type of behavior is wrong.

So Willow, in case your mother is much too busy - or too cavalier - to address it, let me just leave you with this:

Calling someone a "f*ggot", no matter what the reason or excuse, is bigoted and hateful. There are too many kids out there who feel bullied and exiled because of these types of hurtful comments, so much so that they are ending their lives because of it. Just as those words used against your family upset you, these types of words used so carelessly can upset so many others you don't even see. This gives you a choice. You can make your words count for something, to build up other people and to make positive change in the world... or you can be an instrument of pain.

Words have consequences for a reason; to help you learn to choose better words.

Let the change start with *you*.

My Problem with Bristol Palin

2010-11-16T21:31:00.000-08:00

A little known fact about me - I have been boycotting Dancing With the Stars this season. I just can't be a part of it. I simply refuse.

Many who know me as a staunch Democrat who has major issues with Sarah Palin probably think that it is solely because of Bristol's involvement that I refuse to watch. However this goes a little deeper than my overall general disgust at the Palin family's flagrant media-whoring.

To be honest, I really have nothing against Bristol personally. I don't know the girl, and she's basically a kid who is just trying to navigate the world around her the best that she can. She is grabbing these newfound opportunities and God bless her. I know I would if I was in her shoes.

But the problem is I would never be in her shoes, and neither would you, even if we got caught doing the exact same things.

And therein lies the rub.

In my opinion Dancing With the Stars jumped the shark the minute they tried to legitimize folks like Kate Gosselin, The Situation and Bristol Palin as "stars".

This is the media climate that we live in these days. You get thrust into the spotlight merely if you are a raging douchebag OR if you can procreate. (And if you can do both, you're golden - *cough*Jon Gosselin*cough*)

And if you can procreate a LOT, then you are even more sought after. *cough*Octo-Mom*cough*The Duggers*cough*.

In other words if you have a vagina that even remotely resembles a clown car, reality TV has a spot reserved especially for you.

I kinda blame TLC for this. They used to have entertaining shows where real people were featured. I watched my fair share of "A Wedding Story", "A Baby Story" and "Trading Spaces".

Now TLC is nothing but a freak show - the new Palin "reality" show included. It thrives on sensationalism because sensationalism drives ratings and, in turn, the bottom line.

"The Learning Channel" my ass. What exactly are we learning?

We're learning in this post-Paris Hilton/Perez Hilton age you don't have to have a smidgen of talent to be considered a "star". These days you can be a celebrity just because people know who you are.

In the case of Bristol Palin, she's known for two very distinct things.

1.) She's the daughter of a famous, albeit polarizing, political figure.

2.) She's an advocate for abstinence.

The first thing she has no control over. So we can't blame her for that. How the media responds to her is the media's fault alone.

The second part, however, is very much in her control.

She's an advocate for abstinence AFTER becoming a teen mom.

While I can understand why she might have some second thoughts about her behavior now that she actually had to suffer the consequences, the problem is that - arguably - she was pro-abstinence *before* she became a teen mom.

Her family is very religious, her mother is an outspoken conservative who supported abstinence-only education prior to her daughter's pregnancy. The idea of abstinence was not something Bristol figured out after the little stick turned blue.

She's a walking, talking testament why abstinence-only education does not work, yet she gets paid - quite handsomely - to promote it as though it does. This means she's a paid spokesperson for a failed policy by being a failure of that policy.

And we've rewarded this by making her a "star". The same people who support her mother support her - and for the very same reason. These aren't merit votes. These are based on the image she projects and the things she says, even if those things are in sharp contrast to the things she has done.

Worse, she wouldn't even be there on that show had she NOT contradicted her family's beliefs - and by extension, the beliefs of those who adore her mother and now presumably vote for her.

Had she not had a kid and become some poster child for anti-choice, she'd be sitting at home as generic as the rest of the Palin clan.

What she accomplished required no discernible talent. Thousands and thousands of teen girls manage this miraculous feat every single year. The only difference is they don't get to dance onto your TV screen every week and get upwards of $30,000 per "lecture" to talk about it, nor would they be asked to.

In fact, because they are not born to wealthy, famous parent(s) they end up earning scorn for their behavior. They are considered part of the problem of society. Worse, the people so willing to dole out the money for Bristol's "insight" and "wisdom" are far more likely to hang these other teen moms out to dry so that they don't have to spend a dime more in taxes to support them.

Consider that when Fantasia starred in and won American Idol, she was criticized for being a teen mom even though she was using her talent to try and make a better life for herself and for her family.

So I guess the lesson here is that it's okay to be a teen mom who claims to be "pro-life" as long as you're white, born to a political figure on the "right" side of the fence, and have so much money we don't mind giving you thousands more.

Everyone else? Well, you're just part of the problem.

And Liberals are more than likely to blame.

Plus the government.

As long as the president in office is a Democrat.

So you'll have to forgive me for not participating in this fantastically absurd charade. I'd quite rather spend my Mondays watching Dirty Dancing instead.

Call me nutty but I think if you're in a dancing competition you should make it to the finals because you're one of the best talents. And if you're in a celebrity competition you should have legitimately earned that spot by having something unique to offer the entertainment world.

But thanks ABC for redefining the word "star" to mean "mediocre".

That's the best dictionary contribution since "refudiate".

NaNoWriMo - A Waste of Time?

2010-11-05T15:30:00.000-07:00

In case you are unaware, NaNoWriMo stands for National Novel Writing Month. This event is held every November to challenge writers to finish a 50,000 word novel in just 30 days.

It is a literary marathon that is lauded by some and criticized by others.

I ran across a commentary from a web columnist who suggested that NaNoWriMo is a waste of time; that rather than spending a month writing a "really, really bad first draft" we would all be better served actually reading a book or two.

I don't mind the suggestion; as a writer I'm a big fan of readers and lovers of books.

I have a few novels to suggest:

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark
A Study in Scarlet by Arthur Conan Doyle
The Tortoise and the Hare by Elizabeth Jenkins

All these books share one thing in common. They were all written in six weeks or less.

I don't know where the idea originated that you have to toil for a year over a novel to make it good, as if there was some magical paint-by-numbers formula to create a masterpiece. If that was the case we'd all have written a novel and the bookstores would be filled to overflowing with classic after classic.

It doesn't work that way.

This is not a paint-by-numbers occupation and thank God for that. If we all had the same process, we might all write the same books. It should be different, because we as individuals are different.

The "author" of this piece makes a lot of assumptions about the typical NaNoWriMo'er. First of all she assumes that the first draft is going to be nothing but crap. Not all first drafts are created equal. If Stephen King whipped out a book in a month, it wouldn't be the same as someone who had never bothered to write a book. People who participate in Nano aren't all hobbyists or first-timers. To assume that the first draft will be nothing but drivel is an insult to the many (published) writers who actually thrive under the pressure of a 30-day deadline.

More than that she also assumes that Nanoers do not read, nor do they take the craft seriously enough to know that after that frenzied 30 days, a careful revision process must be put in place before one can sell a book.

Sure there are going to be those types of people, but I don't see it as a huge tsunami of hacks slamming on slush piles as a result of NaNoWriMo. The numbers just don't add up. Per this Salon article, of the almost 120,000 participants in 2010 less than 22,000 actually completed a novel. Since I am a writer and I know exactly what it takes to complete this task, I kinda doubt the majority of people who crawl broken and bleeding across the finish line are first-timers or hobbyists.

First-timers and hobbyists are the ones who embark on the journey with no road maps (outlines) and likely write themselves into a corner somewhere around week two. Hobbyists will quickly grow tired of the breakneck pace and grow discouraged as they fall behind.

So let's (generously) argue that half of the 22,000 "winners" ARE first-timers, hobbyists or hacks. Even if they automatically send off their embryonic manuscripts to agents and publishers, mathematically speaking they'd still be in the minority of all the other first-timers, hobbyists and hacks who don't need a NaNoWriMo to litter a slush pile.

Just as there are thousands of folks out there on page 836 of what they think is the next Lord of the Rings, there are plenty of writers who participate in Nano who take their craft seriously. Nano, for them, is nothing more than a boost to get up onto the horse.

The fact is the more seriously you take your craft the more careful you get about putting words on the page. Sometimes you just need to obey that old writing adage, "Don't get it right. Get it written."

In essence I'm not represented in an article meant to disparage the entire process, nor are any of my friends who participate in Nano. We write for a living and have more than just a few finished books under our belts. We get something out of the process and that in itself validates it.

Needless to say, the article offends me on a few levels. The first of which is that she confesses that she is not a writer herself but a reader. In doing so she pretty much gives up any real chance of me taking her snide critique seriously. If she doesn't know about the process, what makes her think she can even think to judge it? Odds are astronomically high she will never have to read a NaNoWriMo first draft, so what difference does it make to her if a hundred thousand or so writers yearly pour their little hearts out during sleepless nights and foggy days in the blissful chaos that is NaNoWriMo?

As far as I can tell the credits on her resume make her a critic rather than a creator. This is my second area of contention. It doesn't take a lot of talent to say why you do or do not like something. There's nothing to lose; you're merely riding piggyback on the labor of another person. Spitting out columns on what you think about books won't even scratch the surface of what it takes to actually write the book itself. You don't understand pacing, character development, building a plot - you simply recognize when it is, or isn't, done well.

Newsflash! Most of us can do that. Even I write reviews for books and movies:

Clan of the Cave Bear
Precious
Alice in Wonderland
Enchanted
Pirates of the Caribbean
Over the Hedge
Hairspray

Eh, you get my point. In order to be a writer you have to be a successful critic on some level. You have to know how to break things down and build them back up again.

The difference is I'm not just in the bulldozer business.

As a professed non-writing reader, it is no coincidence that she goes on to suggest instead of NaNoWriMo there should be a marathon to read. This comes across as, "I don't get what you're doing so let's not do that. Let's do something I do understand instead."

My argument... why can't there be both? Why shouldn't there be both? The more you encourage someone to read the more books need to be written. It's a win-win all the way around.

Like I said, I'm a writer so I embrace any and all efforts to get people to read. I have always read and have always enjoyed it - so much I wanted to create stories of my own.

This lead me to write just a few novels (nine) - some that took months, and some that took weeks. I'm a workhorse when it comes to my craft. I enjoy the process, I even enjoy the sometimes bitter and painful revision part.

Each step is a challenge. It tests me as well as my talent. And no project is a waste of time, nor are any mistakes. The only way to learn to ride a bike is to get out onto it and fall a few times. Eventually you can take what you have learned and make your efforts more polished and better executed.

This works well for me as a screenwriter especially, where time is of the essence. You must produce quality work in a very short amount of time to get and keep a job. There is no toiling for a year and a half to get it *just so.* If you create as part of your business, you learn to be expedient out of necessity. When I worked with a director in 2005, I wrote five drafts in as many months.

Was it crap?

The studio didn't seem to think so. They ended up optioning the script. The only real reason it is not produced today is because financing fell through. I shelved the project and went on to other things, taking it out only to dust it off and convert it from a screenplay to a book for this year's Nano.

Selling it, at this point, is not the goal. The point right now is creation and completion, which for me is an exciting way to spend a month. That's why I've done Nano five out of the last six years.

And - for the record - I have never started any query with "My NaNoWriMo project", or sent out a first draft to an agent or publisher. That's what writing groups are for.

The moral of the story is that if you are passionate, your efforts are not a waste of time. And if you are dedicated to the process you can produce quality content in a short amount of time.

Just ask Charles Dickens. And Sylvester Stallone (Oscar nominated screenplay Rocky written in one week). And John Hughes (The Breakfast Club - 2 days).

Don't let bitter critics dissuade you from pursuing your dream. The only reason they tell you that you can't create something great in 30 days is because they know they can't. You'll never get where you're meant to be by living by the limitations of someone else. If you want to write a novel, more power to you. If this is your first novel especially, I salute you. I don't know if I could have written my first novel in a month.

However... if you want to make this your career, approach it as such. Just like you wouldn't expect your first touchdown to take you to the NFL, your first novel isn't likely to land you on the NYT best seller list. Once you cross that finish line November 30, put the book away and revisit it after a few weeks. Then hack the crap out of it (literally) and learn where the weaknesses are so that you can make them stronger.

Who knows? Maybe someday you can join the ranks of Sara Gruen, whose Nano project Water for Elephants not only made it to the NYT best seller list but is also being made into a movie.

You'll still have to deal with the frustrated lot of bitter critics, but at least you'll know something about yourself they likely do not.

You can will the sun to rise and direct its course across the sky, rather than just inform the world that it's daylight.

Sorry.

2010-10-29T01:37:00.000-07:00

In the last few days I've learned of two instances where someone said something deliberately hurtful in a public forum and then when busted tried to "apologize".

First up was Maura Kelly, a blogger for Marie Claire magazine. Her article, "Should 'Fatties' Get a Room (Even on TV)" spurred a bout of "brutal honestly" when she launched into rather painful detail how "aesthetically displeasing" it was for her to even watch a very fat person walk across the room.

The response was swift and harsh, my own two cents included. By the time I caught wind of the article she'd already posted an amendment where she apologized for the hurtful - and admittedly unproductive - things that she said. "I never wanted anyone to feel bullied or ashamed after reading this, and I sorely regret that it upset people so much."

Fast forward to today when the media is abuzz about an Arkansas school board member who apparently took his discontent of Spirit Day - where folks wore purple on October 20th in solidarity after the recent rash of teen suicides - to his Facebook page. He wrote, "Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide."

According to the report in the Advocate, he responded to a critical response to his original comment with this hate-filled tirade: "No because being a fag doesn't give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it."

The writer/editor in me just cringes at the content of that post, the hateful diatribe aside. "Thereselves"? Really? Not only is it not the proper use of the word "themselves", he can't even pin down the right "their". Apparently in this school district you can be the vice-president even if you're ignorant AND illiterate.

This man was on a SCHOOL BOARD. This is someone whose judgment impacted real kids. This is also a father who could say, "I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off."

Of course now with the outcry he's changed his tune, or at the very least toned it down. That means he's not saying the word "fag" anymore, he's just thinking it.

Per CNN he is now saying, "I'd like to extend apologies to those families that have lost children, for all those children who feel that suicide is the only way out, especially for the five families who have already lost children," he said, referring to a rash of recent suicides by gay teens. "I brought more hurt on them... they didn't deserve that and I do feel genuinely bad for them."

He hasn't changed his view of homosexuality, he still thinks that is a big fat sin, but according to him, "I give everyone a chance and try to love everyone."

Yes, calling someone a fag and telling them he's glad they die is a shining example of ChristianTM love.

Have we really become that stupid as a society that we don't know our words can hurt? Have we really devolved so much that we can call someone a hurtful name, wish them harm or claim how grossed out we are by their existence and are somehow *surprised* that we experience the backlash?

Or have we become an entitled bunch of emotional adolescents who would rather ask for forgiveness rather than permission, as long as we get to do what we want and say what we want, consequences be damned?

Only if we draw negative attention then we pop off with a dutiful, "I'm sorry", as if that makes it all go away.

It doesn't change what they feel, which is why they said that horrible stuff in the first place. You may be sorry you got caught saying it, but you're not sorry you feel it... and that is the real problem.

I, for one, don't accept your apology. I may forgive you, but I don't have to buy into your feigned remorse. You don't get to write about being disgusted by fat people and then an hour later "apologize" because you're "surprised" that you hurt anyone.

There's no way you can condemn "fags" and wish them death, then try to play nice guy to the families who have lost their beautiful children because of your evil, black-hearted hatred.

And guess what, you don't get to claim Jesus when you do that stuff either.

1 John 4:19-20 "We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen."

So next time you open your mouth or sit at your keyboard THINK about what you're going to say.

Don't spew your vitriol and then tell me you're sorry.

Try instead to live a life for which you don't have to apologize.

Freedom of Speech

2010-10-22T12:08:00.000-07:00

The recent firing of Juan Williams from NPR sort of puts an exclamation point on the idea of Free Speech in this country. It's been a tough year for it. First Sarah Palin got her knickers in a twist over Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel using the word "retarded", then Dr. Laura stomped off her radio show for getting immediate backlash over using the word "nigger" eleven times while speaking to a black person.

We were tested as a country how far we were willing to go to protect the feelings of another group of people by the words of those who have been rather notoriously reviled.

The test is usually fairly subjective. It depends on who was using the word - such as Rahm's use of the word "retarded" being somehow more offensive and fire-worthy than Rush Limbaugh's use of the word "retard" to describe the exact same group. One was satire, the other was offensive... but the listener was the person who got to decide which was which.

Likewise Dr. Laura wasn't allowed to say the word "nigger" even though her argument was that black folks used the word casually all the time, and how that was inherently unfair.

It seems like we only have freedom of speech as far as someone else thinks we should have it, which means we're kind of always on the defensive over our own right to free speech.

This sort of shakes out that we only want the right to free speech when it is something that should probably best be left unsaid.... as demonstrated so well in all these past examples.

It all reminds me of a line from Jurassic Park, where Jeff Goldblum's character challenged that the scientists who created the monsters were "were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Free speech means that there is no law prohibiting Rahm Emanuel using the word "retarded" in a closed door meeting.

Free speech means that there is no law prohibiting Dr. Laura from using the word "nigger" or Rush Limbaugh using the word "retard" on broadcast radio.

Free speech means that there is no law preventing people like Juan Williams from saying what they think even if it's not considered politically correct.

Free speech means that no law prevents Vince Vaughn from using the phrase "That's so gay" in a publicized movie trailer.

BUT THAT ALSO MEANS...

There's no law preventing Sarah Palin from being offended as the mother of a special needs child and calling for Rahm's dismissal.

There's no law that says black folks, gay folks and those with special needs can't be offended when celebrities pop off with casual epithets meant to disparage their group as a whole.

There's no law saying - and this is the important one - that any one of them cannot lose their jobs because their employers are put in the position of either defending what they say or appeasing their consumer base thanks to good ol' red, white and blue American capitalism.

You see the gray area we've entered into here?

Yes, we are blessed to have the freedom of speech in this country. That means anyone can say anything at all they please without the law of the land coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

BUT....

It doesn't mean we don't have to answer for what we say should it offend someone else.

The same freedom of speech that protects the offenders also protects the listeners, who get to say what they think also.

Granted we've attempted to "white-wash" our language to such a degree that it seems we can't say anything at all without getting someone's diaper in a wad. We live in a hyper-sensitive society that feels it can do what it wants to do but no one else can make it feel bad.

This makes freedom of speech a double-edged sword.

Dr. Laura can cry in her milk that she doesn't get to say what she things without reprisal, but the fact of the matter is the same freedom she invoked to use the word "nigger" means that everyone who disagrees can speak up as well.

So should Juan Williams lose his job for the things that he said?

That is up to the people who hired him, who have the freedom to decide who works for them and definitely who speaks for them.

Legally he could and did say what he truly thought. And just as legally he suffered the consequences for it.

(Though getting a sweet multi-million dollar deal at Fox News, I'm sure, soothes over any residual resentment he might have had.)

Moral of the story, folks, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of responsibility. They go hand in hand.

So speak wisely and well... even if sometimes that means you don't say anything at all.

"That's So Gay" - and other things you shouldn't say.

2010-10-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

A few years ago my kids began the *very* short-lived habit of saying, "That's so gay," whenever they meant something was bad or stupid. I put my foot down on this immediately, even taking aim at the improper usage of this term on the Internet (and meeting instant resistance to it), for two reasons.

One: Words have power. We need to watch what we say to avoid the insidious "isms" (racism, sexism) that keep bigotry alive and well in our country's psyche. Saying that something is stupid or bad is "gay" wires our brains that gay is bad or stupid. It's like telling a boy he runs like a girl; this not only tells a boy it's bad to be a girl but that girls can't run just as well as boys can.

Both these falsehoods can take lifelong footholds when we teach them to our children. That children are the ones saying, "That's so gay" just proves my point.

We're losing too many of our children to overt bullying, we don't need to bring this kind of subliminal brain-washing to the table. It's dangerous, turning our words into weapons that can actually end another person's life.

Two: It's completely language inappropriate. Unlike the word "retarded", which is also used as a pejorative but can sort of skate by as being "technically" correct if you want to make a literal argument out of it, the word "gay" doesn't literally contain anything within its definition to justify its use in this way.

Which makes it doubly insulting.

When I explained to my kids that saying "It's so gay" was insulting to someone they knew personally, the person they had always known growing up as their "uncle", they suddenly got that it wasn't okay to say this and pretty much stopped.

They also stopped saying "rape" casually as well when I brought it up as a rape survivor hearing "That game totally gang raped me in the ass" was completely insensitive to the idea what "rape" is about.

Because, like I said, words have power.

When we begin to take responsibility for what we say, we can begin to truly strengthen our connections with each other. Take the time to really think about what you say before you say it, and then decide if the world benefits from your saying it at all. With the "freedom" of speech comes the "responsibility" of speech. If what you say does more damage than good, such as making an LGBT teen thinking gay is the worst thing they can be... that it makes them stupid or bad... that isn't "gay". It's just plain mean.

So do us all a favor and kindly shut up.

A Slave to Hyperbole

2010-10-05T11:04:00.000-07:00

Astonishingly, many people in the tea party and other murmurers of discontent are tossing about the word "slavery" in regards to things like paying their taxes. Apparently the trouble comes from the government paying for any need that they feel does not apply to them.

Make no mistake... those tea partiers are just as entitled as those they disdain, those they verbally crucify with the word "socialist", which is equally hyperbolic and aimed right at those who are not educated enough to know the difference.

Having entitlement programs does not a socialist government make, as long as the means of production an industry are privately owned and operated for profit... which, even with that evil social security, has always been the case.

Here's how it works.

You live in a country that provides you certain inalienable rights* (provided you're the right gender, color, sexual orientation, religion, and class). These rights protect you and keep you safe. Branches of the government were created to ensure we carry out the promises of the noble preamble of the Constitution, which state a more "perfect" Union would:

1. Insure domestic Tranquility
2. Provide for the common "defence"
3. Promote the general Welfare
4. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hate to break it to ya, but that stuff ain't free.

And so... with our rights come certain responsibilities. In fact, the best way to be a patriot is to shut your trap and pitch in to make the government work for the best of everyone. This is not socialism, and it's not slavery, it's your *duty*.

Yeah, I said it. And I say that as a tax-payer. My husband and I make enough income that we don't get a refund each year, we have to pay. And we pay that because we know that is the very *least* we can do to participate in our government.

And I personally don't have a problem paying my share so that someone else who is less fortunate can benefit from it in some small way. If a few dollars more on my end means a kid doesn't go hungry, I'm for that. If it means the kids in my district have better schools... sign me up. If it means that the elderly and infirm can have medical treatment... then hurray.

I'd much rather pay for that than a bomb that was exploded as a "test" over over a thousand times to show our military muscle and intimidate the rest of the world.

Entitlement spending (the majority of which is spent on Medicare and Social Security) amounts for a large part of government spending, but it isn't as in trouble as people might want you to believe. (That's just more hyperbole... because apparently this is an argument technique that works so well.)

Theodore Roosevelt felt, and I must agree, that to whom much is given much is expected. (ChristiansTM might take note the Bible states this also). The more blessed you are, the more of a responsibility you carry to ensure the collective rights of the nation that so blessed you.

In fact, all the new Republicans who are bitching about tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans completely missed Teddy's opinion that, "Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits."

(Here's also where I might point out that those states that predominantly vote Democratic - which are the tax and spend types - are the states that have the highest incomes and pay the highest taxes. By comparison, the reddest states in the Union are the ones who have the highest poverty rates AND subsequently pay the least taxes. There's a Biblical principal at work there for my ChristianTM friends as far as money goes but... another blog. Another blog.)

Instead of making duty patriotic, we've become a nation of greed, which says that so long as you get yours, everyone else can just suck it. No one can see past the tips of their own noses. And they don't see past today. They don't ever consider life can happen at the blink of an eye and one day they might be in a position where they'll need a hand up - and they are fortunate to live in a country that won't trample them underfoot should they falter.

But that's compassion. That's empathy. And it has no real place in today's politics. (It's also another blog.)

Instead we hone in on emotionally charged soundbites that strike as much fear as possible into our fellow man so they will do what we want them to do.

White man... black president... and that's the wording on the sign he uses. It honestly leaves me dumbfounded. And we're not even going to talk about Glenn Beck, that doesn't even warrant a blog.

That any white person in the 21st century can even say this with a straight face blows my ever-loving mind.

We will never - thankfully - know what it was like to be a slave.

To be owned by another human being so that all our choices were made for us. To be treated like cattle or a work mule, and no more respected. To give birth to children or make families that never had any security whatsoever, that the people we loved most could be sold or traded at the whim of our master.

We do not know what it is like to go and work in the field until our backs ached and our fingers bled, but have nothing to show but a shack and slop... just enough to ensure survival... but certainly nothing to call our own.

We do not know what it is like to not have the right to come and go as we please, say what is on our mind, have our destiny and our wealth in our own hands.

We will never know what it was like to be beat and terrorized through unspeakable crimes with no legal recourse because the body we have is not our own.

*That* is the inhumanity of slavery.

And that is why it was abolished.

To equate that with paying more than what you consider your fair share of taxes to help the community as a whole is the highest form of hyperbole, and a slap in the face of every person of color who can trace their lineage back to anyone who was brought to this country on a slave ship.

And let's think about this. Slavery existed because rich, white men made laws. Rich white men in the south needed slaves to stay rich. They made their wealth off of the backs of these people whom they didn't have to pay a working wage, or any wage whatsoever. Imagine you own a company and you can produce ten, twenty, fifty times more product without substantially increasing your overhead... you're not going to want to give up that little advantage.

That slaves did this without revolt for two hundred years meant somewhere along the line, the rich person convinced the poor person that it was their best interest... or they simply didn't merit a choice.

That choice was stolen when indentured servitude, which was temporary and ultimately resulted in freedom, was replaced with the more heinous chattel slavery, which meant that people were owned outright, as well as their descendants.

And this happened because rich, white men made laws that leveraged everything in their favor.

By no small coincidence that's also how they stole land from Mexicans and Native Americans who were here first, who had established communities and even wealth, but had it stolen right out from under them with no recourse by a government that favored only the rich and the white.

Seriously. Read about the Cherokee "Trail of Tears" and then try to sell me how bad off you think you'll have it with health care reform.

As long as you have freedom to choose anything - what you say, where you live, where you go, what you do, who you do it with - you lose any right whatsoever to use the term "slavery". This is especially true if you're able to walk away with 65-85% of your income... because that's 100% more than any REAL slave made.

So how's about we stop using that word altogether, eh? It's nothing more than weak hyperbole and it really kinda makes you look like an idiot.

It Gets Better.

2010-10-01T11:27:00.000-07:00

Billy Lucas
Asher Brown
Seth Walsh
Tyler Clementi
Raymond Chase

What do these names have in common?

If you don't know, then you should. These are the names of lives lost in the recent weeks; young lives of people who felt as though they were not free to be themselves - who were sadly discouraged from or even punished for their unique and perfect individuality - and extinguished their precious lives because of it.

It should shatter your heart whenever you read these headlines. These are our children and they're crying out for our help with strangled voices.

We, as a society, have let them down. We try to change these children instead of just loving them. We turn a blind eye to the harsh treatment they get from their peers as if it is at all harmless.

We are a part of the problem.

LGBT youth are more than three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. For young boys, this number escalates even higher. Family abandonment and peer bullying all tragically play a part. These are kids who are punished for how they feel and who they perceive themselves to be.

And it's got to stop.

High school is not a great place for anyone who is "different" - but the kicker is that we're all different. Gay or straight, male or female. It's an unrealistic conformist atmosphere that says you have to be like everyone else or else you have no value.

I'm here to tell you that you have PLENTY of value.

I was once in your shoes. As the survivor of childhood sexual trauma, I considered the unthinkable when I was only 14. Thankfully my best friend, who would come out to me when I was 18, called right before the moment of no return. He saved my life, and my friendship probably saved his.

I know how alone you feel and how horrible that is. There's nothing worse than to doubt yourself or believe that the world would be better off without you, especially in regards to things beyond your control.

I know how easy it is to believe someone when they consider you unworthy. Unlovable. Without purpose.

But you do have a purpose. We all have a purpose. And you have the opportunity to turn it all around with each precious breath that you take. I know it seems impossible but you are not alone. Just at the end of your fingertips are people who love you and would be completely devastated if you weren't here anymore. It's the scariest thing to do but you have to reach out to find out who those people are.

Maybe, like in my case, you'll learn that you're the lifeline to another person. That your presence in the world is what keeps them from considering the impossible.

No matter how different you think you are, your life has meaning. I don't care what the bigots say, who cannot see you beyond their own limited expectations. That's their failure, not yours. You were created and you were designed to love and be loved. That begins with you loving yourself enough to be uniquely you. Because that is a gift to the world, even if it doesn't seem like it.

You are beautiful, no matter what they say.

There are people out there who recognize how beautiful and precious you are, and are willing to love you though the seemingly endless storm. We will not judge you for what you're not, we will love you for all that you are.

Your life is a gift, and if you hang on you'll discover that it is worth the scary, lonely moments. It sounds trite but it gets better. And many times it gets fantastic.

So if you're scared, if you're feeling alone, unloved and unworthy...

Reach out.

I know it doesn't seem like it, but it really does get better.

Be alive to see it.

9/11: International Nice Day - The Result

2010-09-12T09:45:00.001-07:00

A few days ago I was pretty overwhelmed by the people who wanted to take the anniversary of 9/11 and make it into something negative. So called pastors wanted to burn the sacred scriptures of another religion, people wanted to organize a protest right at Ground Zero against the Islamic cultural center (which... the irony of that is mind boggling). It just made me sad. Twitter was trending a topic of "what I want", and all I could think of was, "I just want people to be NICE to each other."

The seed planted, I decided to twist the twisted "International Koran Burning Day" meme that Terry Jones was pushing back to something that was more decent, human and Christ like in nature. Thus "International Nice Day" was born.

Some didn't get it. They thought we should be nice everyday. And we *should*. But we're *not*. And even if we were, there's no real reason we can take one special day and make it *nicer* - especially on an anniversary of something so tragic. September 11, 2001 marked a day of some of the worst of human behavior.

The only way we can heal the wounds is to bring out the best.

After the idea took root I decided to go a little farther with it. I created a Facebook event to share with my friends, who are like minded people who are nice the majority of the time (or else they wouldn't be my friends). I sent out approximately 140 invitations and just hoped for the best.

I didn't really have any expectations of the day, to be quite honest. I just felt compelled to make it something more than a tweet or a blog. It was too important. It may sound silly or pollyanna-ish, but I just felt that being nice had been long forsaken in our national dialogue. We're too busy being hateful or snarky (myself included), too in love with the idea of being "right".

So yeah. We should be nice.

And then we should be nicer.

So I wrote my friend Hal Sparks, who for those of you who don't know is a comedian/actor/singer/commentator/activist. He has a weekly radio program on Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio, and his show just happened to fall on 9/11. I told him about IND and asked if I could call in and talk about it.

Hal, probably one of the nicest people I know, took the idea and ran with it. He introduced the concept very early on into the program, which turned it into running theme throughout the show. I did get to call in and talk to him about it about 50 minutes into the show, and I was overjoyed that he actually "got it".

I expected nothing less.

There were already 300 people who had joined the FB event page by the time this went to air.

Today we're almost at 400 attendees. Celebrities such as Hal, his Queer as Folk co-star Melanie Clunie and Sam Harris joined in, joining others who came from all over the world, putting religion and politics aside for the simple goal of just being nice.

A detractor called it a "non cause", that my energy would be better spent on a real cause.

I don't think there is any cause greater than being nice to your fellow man. Until you can find that kindness, no other causes can follow.

And anyone who participated in the day understands that when you walked outside with the conscious effort to be nicer to people, it was truly transformational.

You smiled a more easily, connected more genuinely, healed more thoroughly.

Yesterday MSNBC ran "As It Happened", minute by minute coverage from 9/11/2001 as it unfolded in real time nine years ago. After I overdosed on positive messages, quotes, music, interaction all day, I decided to spend some time in remembrance of the day. As I watched the footage, which - by the way - I don't usually because it has always hurt too much, it dawned on me the deep seated hurt that I had held in my heart over this tragic event had been finally released. By turning the anniversary into a day of action, I was able to be solemn and reverent - but I was no longer devastated.

It was a huge step in the right direction. It further demonstrated that Biblical scripture that said "love covers a multitude of sins".

Maybe that's why Jesus wanted us all to love one another, including our enemies.

He just wanted us to be nice.

By the end of the day I was exhausted but I was fulfilled in a way I had not expected. International Nice Day may have been created in the humble, hopeful intent to create a change in attitude that could change the world, but how it changed *me* was the real miracle.

I see things from a different perspective; a nicer perspective. I see the world not for what I hope it could be but what it is. It's a beautiful, beautiful place if you just know where to look.

Humans are kinder and good actually does outweigh evil. Change - and peace - is possible.

It all starts with one person.

And that one person was me.

So thank you all who participated with this, who shared themselves, who answered the call. You not only renewed my faith in humanity, but you taught me so much about who I thought I was and who I can be.

See you next year, when we do it all again.

(And for those who think we should be nice every day - keep the momentum going and just be "nicer". I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how your world can change.)

9/11 - International Nice Day; Board the Love Train

2010-09-10T22:18:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the First Annual 9/11: International Nice Day to commemorate the resilience of the human spirit and the power of peace over hatred and intolerance. I'm so excited what's happening over at the Facebook Event Page. It started with 140 invitations to the people in my network. Now over 220 have accepted the invitation and there are now over 1000 outstanding invitations as the ripples continue to carry on far and wide.

I'm excited.

So this is our Love Train and I'd like everyone to get on board. I want you to feel free to post your favorite songs (John Lennon and the Beatles are getting quoted on the FB page), post suggestions of little things we can do to spread the kindness today. Post your favorite quotes, or maybe some positive stories on change or kindness.

This is your place. I want you to enjoy it.

Let's fill it with hope, kindness and positivity.

People all over the world (everybody)
Join in (join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (all the world, now)
Join in (love ride)
Start a love train (love ride), love train
The next stop that we make will be England
Tell all the folks in Russia, and China, too
Don't you know that it's time to get on board
And let this train keep on riding, riding on through
Well, well
People all over the world (you don't need no money)
Join hands (come on)
Start a love train, love train (don't need no ticket, come on)
People all over the world (Join in, ride this train)
Join in (Ride this train, y'all)
Start a love train (Come on, train), love train
All of you brothers over in Africa
Tell all the folks in Egypt, and Israel, too
Please don't miss this train at the station
'Cause if you miss it, I feel sorry, sorry for you
Well
People all over the world (Sisters and brothers)
Join hands (join, come on)
Start a love train (ride this train, y'all), love train (Come on)
People all over the world (Don't need no tickets)
Join hands (come on, ride)
Start a love train, love train
Ride, let it ride
Let it ride
Let it ride
People, ain't no war
People all over the world (on this train)
Join in (ride the train)
Start a love train, love train (ride the train, y'all)
People all over the world (come on)
Join hands (you can ride or stand, yeah)
Start a love train, love train (makin' love)
People all over the world ('round the world, y'all)
Join hands (come on)
Start a love train, love train

Suggestions to Be Nice:

Smile at everyone you see today.

Hold the door open for someone.

Let someone ahead of you in traffic.

Buy the stranger behind you in line their cup of coffee.

Call an old friend you haven't talked to in a while.

Buy a homeless person some food.

Hug somebody.

Play with your kids.

Turn off the TV and have a family game night.

Tweet your favorite charity.

Pay a complete stranger a sincere compliment.

Donate old books or magazines to a hospital or library.

Give blood.

Tip your waitress a dollar extra.

Buy some non perishable food and drop it off at your local food bank.

Visit a nursing home.

Pick up the litter at a local park.

Forgive an old grudge.

Make somebody laugh.

I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

The colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people going by
I see friends shaking hands saying how do you do
They're really saying I love you.

I hear babies crying, I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll never know
And I think to myself what a wonderful world
Yes I think to myself what a wonderful world.

"It is when you give of yourself that you truly give."
-- Kahil Gibran

"Kind words can be short and easy to speak but their echoes are truly endless."
-- Mother Teresa

"If there is any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not deter or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again."
-- William Penn

"Kindness gives birth to kindness."
-- Sophocles.

"Kindness is an inner desire that makes us want to do good things even if we do not get anything in return. It is the joy of our life to do them. When we do good things from this inner desire, there is kindness in everything we think, say, want and do."
-- Emmanuel Swedenborg.

"Life is short and we have never too much time for gladdening the hearts of those who are travelling the dark journey with us. Oh be swift to love, make haste to be kind."
-- Henri Frederick Amiel

"Our deeds determine us, as much as we determine our deeds."
-- George Eliot

"It is never too late to be what we might have been."
-- George Eliot

When the last child cries for a crust of bread,
When the last man dies for just words that he said,
When there's shelter over the poorest head,
We shall be free,

When the last thing we notice is the color of skin,
And the first thing we look for is the beauty within,
When the skies and the oceans are clean again,
Then we shall be free,

We shall be free,
We shall be free,
So stand straight,
Walk proud,
'Cause we shall be free,

When we're free to love anyone we choose,
When this worlds big enough for all different views,
When we're all free to worship from our own kind of pew,
Then we shall be free,

We shall be free,
We shall be free,
Have a little faith,
Hold out,
'Cause we shall be free,

And when money talks for the very last time,
And nobody walks a step behind,
When there's only one race and that's mankind,
Then we shall be free,

We shall be free,
Listen to what I'm saying to you,
We shall be free,
Cause every night and day I pray it's true,
Together,
Forever,
We shall be free,

We shall be free,
We shall be free,
Stand straight,
Have a little faith,
Walk proud,
Hold out,

We shall be free,
Listen to what I'm sayin' to you,
We shall be free,
Every night and day I pray it's true,
Together,
Forever,
We shall be free,

9/11 Father: 'I Don't Understand All of This Hate'

"Tomorrow can be a better day," Ielpi says. "I can't bring my son back. I wish to God that I could. But maybe I can make a better day for my grandkids. That's what we're trying to do."

9/11 Day of Service

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Let me tell you now
Ev'rybody's talking about
Revolution, Evolution, Mastication, Flagelolation, Regulations.
Integrations, Meditations, United Nations, Congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Oh Let's stick to it
Ev'rybody's talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy smothers, Bob Dylan,
Tommy Cooper, Derek Tayor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

The Value of Money

2010-09-10T10:38:00.000-07:00

Far be it from me than to prevent someone trying to turn a profit, but I've been giving this whole Glenn Beck-9/11 thing some thought. People apparently want to pay their hard earned money to hear him speak and will happily fork over the dough to attend his rally in Alaska tomorrow.

Prices start at $65, but can run a whopping $200 if you want a Meet and Greet with Glenn himself. Seems kind of steep for this economic environment but, I guess it's only too high if there's no one willing to pay it.

Either way, for all of us outside of Alaska who have $65 burning a hole in our pockets just haunting us to give them a new home... I thought I'd find a few things we could do instead that would honor and commemorate this sacred date.

For $10 we can buy a mosquito net. Worldwide malaria kills over a million of people infected with the disease, and 90% of those deaths occur in Africa. Malaria is the leading cause of death in children in Africa, which is completely tragic because the disease is entirely preventable.

Since malaria is transmitted by mosquitoes, treated bed nets work as a cost effective barrier in places where window screens and expensive anti-malarial drugs are not an option.

And that's all for ten bucks.

It's hard to imagine that on our planet over a BILLION people don't have access to clean drinking water. The lack of safe drinking water not only causes 80% of all illnesses, but it annually kills more people than any form of violence, including war.

Of the 42,000 deaths each WEEK, 90% of those are children. Their bodies lack the ability to fend off these entirely preventable diseases. For just $20, you can provide clean drinking water to one person for 20 years.

Saving children from preventable disease with a bed net and water for about $30? Sounds like a bargain.

There's also St. Jude Children's Hospital that takes care of every child diagnosed with cancer despite their inability to pay. You can pledge a monthly gift of $19 and 81 cents of every dollar you give goes to treatment and research for the littlest victims of cancer.

Everywhere you look people are talking about the economic crisis. One in six Americans currently battle with hunger. If you donate to your local food bank, they can provide meals for the neediest families in your community for the price of a cup of coffee. For every $1 you give to Feeding America, it provides 7 meals.

For $65, that's 455 meals. (At three meals a day that's saving someone from hunger for over five months.)

Jesus said wherever your treasure is, there your heart will also be. (Luke 12:34). Maybe it's time we put our money where our mouth is. It's time to turn charity from a noun into a verb.

The Reaction to 9/11: International Nice Day

2010-09-10T08:33:00.000-07:00

As you know it's been my suggestion that we should combat the hate and hypocrisy in the world by making a day marred by tragedy one of peace and kindness. It's a hippie move and I'll totally cop to that, but I do believe that it's our duty and responsibility to honor the past by giving new life to the future.

It's really heartening to me to see people take this idea and run with it. It has been like tossing a pebble into a pond and watching the ripples roll out as far as the eye can see. Even farther, perhaps, than I had originally thought possible. I created a Facebook event to invite people to participate in their own way and in their own town, figuring this would be a great way to have the event have some sort of impact.

I'm not threatening to burn the Quran so I'm not getting a whole lot of media attention with this thing... YET. Just wait till next year... because I will be doing this again with a lot more advance warning.

But I'm doing what I can. So far over 140 people (friends and mostly friends of friends) have committed to the idea. Surprisingly, 42 have declined. I say surprisingly because given the fact this event is free - it costs nothing more than a kindness - and it can be celebrated anywhere I figured it would be a no brainer to say yes.

Especially since I figured no one would have a problem with just committing a day to being nice.

But apparently 42 people have decided, for whatever reason, to opt out of it.

It confuses me slightly.

Some people have come back and said, "Shouldn't we be nice *every* day?" as if I had at all suggested that we shouldn't extend this kindness beyond the perimeters of 9/11. In fact, I expect that you will be so emotionally rewarded for the actions of tomorrow you will have to keep it going. Peace, like conflict, is perpetual.

Like I was saying earlier - it's like dropping a pebble into a pond.

I'm not suggesting we NOT be nice every other day of the year, but EXTRA nice on 9/11.

Another response I got was a lady who said she would not be participating because she would be in mourning. The response confused me; have we really become that emotionally crippled as a country that we cannot multi-task sadness and action at the same time? Like I responded to her, I've lost dear people in my life (an anniversary of which is coming up on 9/13, actually), and I understand that even as the years pass the ache can feel very fresh on these days that recall such tragedy.

But if we can get up out of bed, we can be nice. If we can take a shower, brush our teeth, we can be nice. If we can head out the door and go log in four, eight, six, ten hours on a job, we can be nice.

I think this response is probably the key reason we have lost that momentum we had in those dark hours that passed after the planes hit the towers in NYC that early September morning nine years ago.

When it happened we were so eager to do anything we could to help, anything we could to reach out, anything we could to find peace in the chaos.

Since then we've delegated 9/11 to some sacred tombstone as if nothing else can touch it, and in doing so have lost what made the hours that followed so miraculous.

We can mourn for what was lost that day, because we lost a lot. Even if you weren't in NYC, DC or PA, you lost something as an American that has been hard as hell to reclaim - if it ever can be.

We may never get it back.

But that doesn't mean we can't make things *better*.

To honor those lives lost, celebrate the lives that are still here.

And all I'm suggesting that you do is just be a little nicer and more compassionate, more considerate, to accomplish this.

Another response was, "well THEY won't be nice to us", as if that was ever excuse enough not to be a good person. I almost feel like I'm talking to a child when someone says something like this.

So because someone else hates you, that's reason enough for you to be meaner to the world at large?

How in the world does that make sense?

Especially since that's how we get a 9/11 in the first place.

You're not kind because OTHER people are kind. You're kind because it's the right thing to do.

In fact, that's the only way to have any honor at all.

So... you don't have to accept the invitation to be nice - that is certainly your choice.

But I hope that by all we're doing with 9/11: International Nice Day plants a seed in your head that the universe we live in is reciprocal. What you send out is what you get back.

Let's make it good.

What Terry Jones and Dove Outreach REALLY accomplished.

2010-09-09T09:36:00.001-07:00

So as you know the "pastor" of the Dove Outreach "church" in Gainesville, Florida has decided to go through with his "International Koran Burning Day". This is despite being urged by people like General Petraeus and even Sarah Palin to reconsider or "stand down". This is despite that he supposedly "prayed" over the subject and, as a result, has yielded to the will of his god despite worldwide opposition to his act of willful and selfish defiance.

Jones now says that he might reconsider if asked to by the Obama administration. This despite the fact that Obama has already openly criticized the event, calling it a "recruitment bonanza" for Al-Qaeda. This smacks to me as a very overt game of "Chicken". If President Obama asks the church not to burn the Quran, immediately those 1 in 5 Americans who think that he's secretly a Muslim will be even more convinced.

And people like Sarah Palin, who made a statement against the Quran burning event, will use anything Obama says to further illustrate the illogical argument that building a mosque and burning a book are two sides of the same coin.

Which, personally, I don't think they are for the very simple fact one seeks to build a bridge, the other to literally burn it. In all the examples of, "We know we can do something but should we," I think burning a Quran (or any book) further seeks to create hate and intolerance than building a cultural center.

But here's the bloom on this very thorny rose.

This tiny group of religious extremists (Jones, not Al-Qaeda) in their zeal to destroy that which they do not understand, fear or hate have actually brought the world together in a very uncommon alliance.

Sarah Palin and President Obama actually agree on something. Pastors like John Hagee have taken a stand for what Jesus thinks on the subject by actually using the passages in the Bible that speak on peace and loving one's enemy.

People are standing up for what is right and good for the best interest of others, rather than themselves.

It reminds me of another day nine years ago when a small group of religious extremists tried to destroy something they did not understand, feared or hated and brought the world together in a very unexpected and beautiful way.

Such is the unbreakable nature of the human spirit; and the infallible goodness that exists in us all.

We can't change what Terry Jones is doing - obviously. But we can change how we represent our values and our beliefs to the world.

9/11 International Nice Day - You have the power to make it happen.

9/11 - International Nice Day

2010-09-08T14:48:00.000-07:00

As 9/11 approaches many people plan to commemorate this day in a variety of ways. Glenn Beck is throwing a shindig in Alaska at $65-200 a ticket. Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach in Gainesville have declared it "International Burn a Koran Day" and plan to torch copies of religious text in a sanctimonious bonfire.

It just makes me sad, really.

Remember what the country was like in those devastating hours and days following 9/11, when it ceased being a date and became a turning point? People were a little nicer. The country was a little more cohesive. We stumbled but we did not fall - because we were unafraid to hold each other up. Strangers embraced each other and the government stopped playing the blame game just long enough to lead the charge. The entire world came together and mourned our lost and shared our despair.

For a moment - we were of one race, one mind and one heart.

Beauty was able to rise out of ashes.

Hatred brought about that tragic day. Intolerance and bigotry, fear and hatred drove extremists to attack those they did not know and kill innocent victims - regardless of religion, race, age or gender. People ceased to be human and became collateral damage for "the greater cause".

A statement was made.

Therefore I don't think we need an "International Koran Burning Day"; it feeds into that same intolerance and bigotry, fear and hatred. This is not a statement to radical Islam, it's the deliberate statement that says "we're justified in hating what you believe, simply because it's different".

I think we had enough of that on 9/11/2001.

It's time for a new statement.

As far as I can tell there is no "International Nice Day" - and I think there really should be. We can recapture - for one day - that sense of community and purpose that we had back then. It shouldn't take another tragedy to bring out the best in us.

If we bring out the best in us, maybe there won't be another tragedy.

What's say we give it a try?

On Saturday lead the charge to reach out and inspire the "nice" all around you. Post nice news stories or songs of encouragement, turn the tide in community events by dousing the anger with words of peace and encouragement. Promote the causes of your favorite charities to inspire good works, instead of empty words.

Let's make it happen.

Just one day. One very important day....

Be nice.

The Root of All Evil.

2010-09-08T05:11:00.000-07:00

It never fails to amuse me how pro-capitalist Neo-Cons want to corner the market on God, as if they alone know his perfect will.

But the Bible has been pretty clear what it thinks about money. In 1 Timothy 6:10, scripture tells us:

10For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many [a]acute [mental] pangs.

Some people get this scripture confused and think money itself is evil, but the key words there are "the love of money" - i.e. greed.

The Bible also says that you cannot serve two gods; both God and Money. If you put your money ahead of God, that's exactly what you're doing.

Most people, especially those who subscribe to ChristianityTM, refuse to believe that is what they do when they cling to their personal wealth or their own money with an iron fist.

If you really believe in what the Bible says then you know it's not yours to begin with, and therefore you can easier let it go. (And pay your taxes... but that's another blog...)

I found this particular picture especially ironic, given the true nature of tithing, which very few ChristiansTM seem to (want to) understand.

It boils down to this. Of your wealth you give 10% back to God. It's not because he is impoverished and needs your money, it's an act of worship to honor God and be thankful for what you have been given.

Plus it's not really yours, anyway. Everything you have comes from him, so therefore tithing is just giving a bit of his money back as an act of reverent obedience.

So a tithe is your duty, if you will. And there are consequences if you do not fulfill it.

In fact, Mal 3:7-12 says that denying this duty is tantamount to stealing from God.

Now, even though modern Christians typically forsake this particular duty - which makes that picture up there especially amusing, tithing is actually not the end of what you need to give of your income.

In addition to the tithe, you are called upon to give "tithes AND OFFERINGS."

"10% is enough for God."

Uh, no it's not.

Consider when Jesus was confronted by the rich young ruler who asked him what he must do beyond keeping the commandments to truly follow Christ. Jesus told him to (and I quote) "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

The key word there, I believe, is "all".

In fact, Jesus kinda sounds like Robin Hood here. He doesn't just want the guy to give away *all* his wealth. He wants him to give it (wait for it) TO THE POOR.

Oh that Jesus. Such a crazy Socialist.

In fact, Jesus actually chastised those who gave a small portion of their wealth in the story of the poor widow. (And I quote again) "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has given more than all the others who are making contributions. 44 For they gave a tiny part of their surplus, but she, poor as she is, has given everything she had to live on."

I'm not making this stuff up, kids. The Bible's full of this kind of thing, IF, that is... you're looking for it.

"So God wants me to be poor, I guess?"

Uh, no.

The idea behind tithes and offerings is so that you are blessed for being faithful. It is showing that you recognize the true gift of your favor and are not just willing, but cheerful to give in return.

And guess what? It comes with a promise. If you are obedient, you are blessed. If you are generous, you are blessed.

You're not just blessed a little. You're blessed a LOT... depending of course how much you decide to give.

Luke 6:38:
38 Give, and you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full—pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, running over, and poured into your lap. The amount you give will determine the amount you get back.[a]”

Remember the rich young ruler who was instructed to give up everything he had so he could follow Christ? He couldn't bear to part with his wealth, and so he missed out on Jesus all together.

BUT, he also missed out on this little promise a few scriptures down:

Matthew 19:

29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or property, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in return and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then.[k]

So there's no downside to generosity. Money and wealth is not evil. God even wants to give you more of it. You just have to love him more than you love it.

Matthew 6:24

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Remember that the next time you head to the polls and you're being manipulated by your religious leaders to hold on to your wealth and forsake the poor, the needy, the sick and the imprisoned.

Don't be a ChristianTM. Don't try to skate into Heaven on someone else's sacrifice.

James 2

14 What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? 15 Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, 16 and you say, “Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well”—but then you don’t give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do?

17 So you see, faith by itself isn’t enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless.

18 Now someone may argue, “Some people have faith; others have good deeds.” But I say, “How can you show me your faith if you don’t have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds.”

19 You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God.[f] Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. 20 How foolish! Can’t you see that faith without good deeds is useless?

ChristianityTM

2010-09-07T03:58:00.000-07:00

There was a time when Keith Olbermann rightly called the GOP leadership on their incessant use of 9/11 for their own political gain. He said that they had trademarked that horrific day into a marketing tool that would scare and manipulate their voter base.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Their argument was, as it always has been, that only Republicans can keep you safe. Forget the fact that it falls directly on the GWB administration that they ignored warnings what was to happen, then once it did happen used it to further their own self serving agenda.

As usual, facts are overlooked and swept under the rug when they inconveniently refute the marketing effectiveness.

As this anniversary looms and the likes of Glenn Beck plan to emotionally and literally cash in on it with typical GOP hypocrisy, another - more insidious - manipulative ideology rears its ugly head.

This time, it's ChristianityTM.

Anyone who has read and studied the gospels of Jesus Christ can plainly see that what Neo-Conservatives have turned this ideology into is not Christianity at all.

I went over it thoroughly in my Jesus: The Original Liberal blog. If Jesus has a political affiliation - and he wouldn't, as it is divisive in nature - it would lean toward the policies that seek to be more charitable, more peaceful, that serve community as a whole.

The current GOP has turned into nothing more than those thieves in the temple, who cash in on the name of Christ while overtly shunning everything for which he stood.

ChristianityTM has turned into a gun leveled at anyone who doesn't agree. It's not a matter of personal salvation insomuch as it is a method of terrorism to browbeat and terrify "unbelievers" into submission.

They don't care about repentance, yours or theirs. They don't care about your soul. They don't want to see you transform anymore than they're willing to transform themselves.

Case in point the hateful group Repent Amarillo, who uses bully tactics to "fix" what they think is wrong.

But had you gone to their website - their unapologetic war themed website - you were told, "point blank", it was not a place for non believers.

They want you to repent, but they don't want to help you do it. They'd just rather stand outside nightclubs with bullhorns and religious music and a clipboard to take down the license of every car of every heathen that dares show his face. That way they can virtually track you down and stalk you, "outing" you to your boss and your community to shame you into submission.

That's not Christianity, or evoking the behavior of Christ. It's ChristianityTM.

There's an easy way to tell the difference. If your behavior does not have a Biblical root in the gospels of Christ, emulating the things he did or said, it's not Christianity.

There is no other ruler by which to measure it. Sorry.

Jesus Christ would not bomb a Planned Parenthood or GUN DOWN a doctor in HIS OWN CHURCH.

He also wouldn't protest funerals sanctimoniously proclaiming that God hates ANYONE, because he knew - more than anyone - exactly how much God loved us all.

He died for the unjust and the unrighteous... WHICH WE ALL ARE.

But instead of beating us up for our failures or terrorizing us with hateful messages, Jesus transformed people with his love and his acceptance. Even when Peter sliced off the ear of a Roman guard who had come to take Jesus away, Jesus HEALED the guard, i.e. the "enemy".

"All who live by the sword will die by the sword."

Jesus was willing not just to sacrifice himself for those who would believe in him and take him at his word, but also for those who hated him and wanted him tortured and dead.

"Forgive them, they know not what they do."

ChristianityTM has no use for this pacifist way of thinking. They skate into heaven on the sacrifice of someone else with a simple, "I'm sorry". This isn't true regret or repentance as much as it is fire insurance for the soul that can be played infinitely as a "Get out of Hell Free" card.

But when Jesus absolved people of their sin in the Bible, he instructed, "Go. And sin no more."

ChristianityTM doesn't understand that in order to earn the title of Christian you must do the things that Christ commanded us to do. Love our enemies. Bless those that curse us. Love those that hate us, for it doesn't give us any credit whatsoever to love only those who love us in return.

If that had been the case, Jesus wouldn't have died on that cross for all of mankind; and be clear it was ALL of mankind. Jesus died for Hitler the same as he died for Mother Teresa.

You don't have to like it or agree with it to be so, but if you spent any time at all reading that Bible you stand on rather than just cherry pick the parts that give you some kind of "right" to your carnal behavior, you'd see that the Scriptures are pretty clear about it.

ChristianityTM, however, wants to lay claim to this wonderful gift and burn any bridges between "us" and "them".

On the anniversary of 9/11, a "church" in Florida has decided to commemorate these sad, tragic events by taking the sacred scripture of another group of people and burn it in overt retaliation.

I find it especially interesting for those who have been theoretically spared the fires of hell, they sure like to make a dramatic statement using fire. They turn into a bunch of gleeful pyromaniacs whenever they feel the occasion warrants it.

Perhaps they feel bolstered by the outcry against "The Ground Zero Mosque", where ChristianityTM has spread across this nation like a cancer, prompting acts of terrorism and bigotry that have no Biblical foundation in the teachings of Christ.

Another theology threatens the core of ChristianityTM because they do not have the requisite faith and love to transform out of peace and understanding. Instead they have to stamp it out like a snake underfoot.

They live in fear because their faith is too weak to face anything other than some carefully stacked house of cards that says no one can be different without being condemned... all the while forsaking the verses that say when we condemn others we ourselves are condemned.

Absent are the peacemakers and the meek, those whose faith rests solely in Jesus Christ alone. Instead they use their guns and their fire to destroy their enemy without any regard to what Christ has said or what Christ can do.

And just like 9/11TM, this ChristianityTM is nothing more than a marketing ploy used by those who would control you to do their evil deeds for them, all the while blatantly crapping over all you should hold dear.

Nothing gets constituents to the polls faster than stirring up ChristianityTM. "They're going to outlaw your Bible!" "They're going to kill the unborn!" "They're going to take away your right to hate!"

(Meanwhile abortion still remains legal despite five Republican presidents serving 22 of the past 36 years it's been legal. And yet you still vote for "pro-life" presidents, expecting that to change.)

Whereas Christianity serves others, ChristianityTM serves self. Early Christians didn't need the support of their government to believe what they knew to be true. They were so certain of their faith they were willingly persecuted and died for it.

ChristianityTM knows nothing of this sacrifice. They require everyone around them to believe as they believe because they are too emotionally and spiritually insecure to stand alone with God. If they did they might have to answer for their own wickedness.

So they must stand with the majority. If Christianity were replaced in this country by any other religion or no religion at all, those who subscribe to ChristianityTM would succumb, unable to be made uncomfortable or inconvenienced for what they claim to believe.

Which is why they fight against it so.

The "church" in Florida has committed to this hateful act despite warnings from General Petraeus that this behavior could endanger our troops in Afghanistan. Turns out there's not just ChristianityTM, but PatriotismTM as well.

It's remarkable how they go hand in hand, especially on 9/11TM.

These arsonists are probably just sorry they don't have a couple of planes to fly into a mosque somewhere. Although that would present the question, who would fly the planes?

Unlike IslamTM, those radical extremists who are willing to die for their perverted sense of religion, ChristianityTM can only be bothered to kill.

ChristianityTM, as always, serves self first.

Yet both are equal terrorists. The only difference is ChristianityTM has been able to hide behind their government to do their dirty deeds.

While you gather in your pious, self serving, hypocritical celebration that tosses into the fire the sacred text of another person, keep these two things in mind:

One: Matthew 7:12. "12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (I used the KJV, since that seems to be the preferred translation for ChristianityTM)

Two: Though you evoke his name, Jesus will not be there in your midst. Jesus was a carpenter; he built bridges rather than destroyed them. He loved rather than hated. Had faith, rather than feared. So he would never condone a willful act of hatred against our fellow man that would incite conflict. Instead he will be on the cross you nail him to which each act of human defiance, telling God to forgive you... that you know not what you do.

Arizona Justice

2010-09-05T09:46:00.001-07:00

As it turns out, Arizona doesn't just hate brown people. They hate women too. Opened up a link on Twitter today that read "Prison spit-roasts woman; no problem says county". I assumed as the page loaded that it would report on a country where women are still treated as second class citizens, who could be stoned to death for things like adultery. When I realized that this story took place right here in America, I was shocked.

Now I'm outraged.

To sum up: a female prisoner of Perryville Prison in Goodyear had been placed in a "cage" exposed to the heat and sun in May of 2009. She was kept there for four hours despite prison policy stating such outdoor confinement be limited to two hours.

But apparently, in Arizona, they can make this stuff up as they go along.

Not only was she detained those extra two hours, her pleas for water and for restroom breaks reportedly fell on deaf ears. Allegedly she was even mocked as she further succumbed to dangerous heat. Reports say temperatures reached an unbearable 107 degrees that day.

When they found her unconscious body, she was covered in her own excrement.

She was actually alive when she was delivered to the hospital, but Arizona Department of Corrections director Charles Ryan - without any authority to do so - had her life support suspended.

Marcia Powell died in the early morning hours of May 20th, at only 48 years of age.

I'd like to put this in perspective.

1.) This woman was serving a 27 month sentence for prostitution. This was not a murderer, or a serial killer. She was a human being punished because there are men on this planet who see fit to pay for sexual services.

Where were her "clients" while she suffered under the blazing Arizona sun?

What is the sentencing guidelines for a man caught soliciting prostitution in Arizona, I wonder?

2.) This heinous crime took place in 2009, and I'm just now hearing about it. When a woman places a cat in a trash can, the world comes together in collective outrage almost instantaneously. When a woman is kept in a cage in 107 degree heat, somehow it gets swept under the rug for a year proving we have somehow lost our sympathy - and our humanity - in the process.

There would have been more outrage - and more justice - had she been a dog.

3.) This crime, and make no mistake about it - that's what this is - will not be prosecuted.

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has decided not to prosecute the Arizona Department of Corrections for this gross negligence and virtual manslaughter - which defined under Arizona law is “[r]ecklessly causing the death of another person.”

Per the 3,000-page ADC report, Marcia pleaded to be taken back inside, but was ignored despite the sweltering heat.

The medical examiner also declared that the death resulted from complications of hyperthermia due to environmental heat exposure. That included dehydration, which would suggest that her requests for water were in fact denied, and acute renal failure. She was also covered in first and second degree thermal burns.

Toxicology reports also indicate Marcia was on a litany of medications; "Benztropine, a medication for Parkinson disease, the antipsychotic medication Haloperidol, and valproic acid, a mood-stabilizing drug used to treat depression and epilepsy."

Side effect of Benztropine:

Endocrine:
Hyperthermia, anidrosis, heat stroke.

Precautions regarding the use of Haloperidol, otherwise known as Haldol, in extreme temperatures:

"Certain psychiatric medications (including haloperidol- Haldol®, risperidone- Risperdal®, and others) block the body's message to the brain regarding the elevated temperature."

Haldol is also listed under tables for medications that can cause photosensitivity and have the potential to cause hyperthermia.

When her body was tested it had a core temperature of 108 degrees.

Yet her death has been ruled as "an accident".

If a child or a pet was punished in this way with the same results, American would have had the head of the person responsible.

Hell, if you forget to put sunscreen on your child and they get a burn, you run the risk of being reported to Child Protective Services.

God forbid you leave a dog alone in a car for ten minutes.

But because this woman was a prisoner, and the people responsible were the Department of Corrections - no further action is necessary, aside from a token action from the prison system to make outdoor confinement a little less archaic.

This did not happen in some third world country, or a dictatorship where women are often cruelly and unfairly punished. This happened in America. This happened in a country where there should be liberty and justice for all, and that shouldn't end at the prison door. This was not just a criminal. This was a woman. This was a human being, who was the sum of more than just her mistakes. That she had a long history of mental illness just makes this all the more upsetting.

I encourage every single person who reads this blog to take action. To spread the word. To demand accountability.

She died alone.

Be her voice now.

Jesus: The Original Liberal

2010-09-03T02:50:00.001-07:00

Many moons ago I wrote a blog called "An Open Letter to Ann Coulter" in response to her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism". I was outraged as a Christian Liberal that she could suggest that we were, in any way, godless.

This is probably the single most offensive issue to me and one that I feel a personal duty to help eradicate. It's not a battle for the fainthearted. Where the elitist Left such as Bill Maher and his ilk look down their noses at me for having the "stupidity" to believe, the equally judgmental "Right" call my faith into question because I dare to dismantle their pious hypocrisy by using their very on Bible against them.

I take each blow willingly because I know where my faith was founded and my principles cannot be swayed by the likes of either of those groups. I am not, as too many modern American "religious" folks are, spiritually insecure. I could no more sway from my principles than forget to breathe.

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And Jesus is Jesus. No matter who currently handles his PR.

Point of fact, the Christian values I have are what shaped and developed my Liberal/Democratic/Progressive point of view and have from a very early age. I was raised from the womb in the Southern Baptist church where I was "saved" by age 8 and baptized by age 12. I've read/studied the Bible (various translations, including KJV) for decades and the Jesus I know - if he had a party affiliation - would be more in line with the tenants of liberalism rather than the modern face of conservatism ala Fox "News".

This may come as a big surprise to the likes of Glenn Beck, who has now decided his view alone is the "true" version of Christianity. This must have been bolstered by the fact that people did actually show up at his rally and treated him more like a revivalist than a political talking head.

I personally feel he's not qualified for either position. Especially now that he claims that Obama's faith is a "perversion" of the tenants of Jesus and Christianity as, he put it, "most Christians" know it.

Unfortunately, technically, he has a point. The "Christians" he talks about do consider things like peace and diplomacy before war, inclusion to all and the common good over personal gain a "perversion" of Jesus and of Christianity.

They've trademarked a conservative warrior Jesus, who exclusively draws to him those who believe in holy war (a jihad, perhaps?), capitalism and sacrifice of choice... which is no sacrifice at all.

For some strange reason Beck and his 828 rally have cemented this new type of theology that mocks the very things in the Bible Jesus did. They decry victimization while becoming victims themselves. And Beck is all too wiling to become this voice of the radical fringe who need to mold God and Jesus into their own image rather than the other way around.

Inexplicably people who mean well have been scared or angered into twisting the Bible into things to justify bigotry and war and call it holy. It has nothing to do with Jesus anymore, as this behavior flies in the face of everything in which he ever stood.

There's a reason Conservatives are on a mission to change the Bible to make it less liberal. The gospels at their very heart are nothing but anti-capitalism, anti-war, pro-peace, pro-charity tenants that steal the thunder from under provocateurs like Coulter, Beck, Bush, Robertson, Dodson and all the others who have used believers' faith in God for their own selfish gain. They are not unlike the money changers in the temple, which is one of two instances where we see Jesus get angry in recorded gospel.

The other, not so ironically enough, was the strong words he had against the pious Pharisees, who led their sheep not with their own example but with manipulation and control. I dunno bout you, but I see a theme there.

This isn't just about abortion and gay rights (neither of which Jesus spoke anything about, incidentally). We've all been hoodwinked to believe that just one or two issues divide us - when in fact the literal definition of liberalism is simply this: "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

Sounds pretty American to me. And given the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, it sounds like something Jesus could have supported as well, especially when it comes down to key party issues.

If you don't believe me, then perhaps you should take HIS word for it.

On the issues for which Conservatives generally ridicule Liberals:

Taxes:

Mark 12:

3 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?" 15But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." 16And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." 17Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him.

The Apostle Paul went one further in his letter to the Romans, saying:

Romans 13:7

Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

On "Public Prayer"

Matthew 6:

5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you

Capital Punishment vs Rehabilitation:

John 8:

1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

On War, Diplomacy and Pacifism

Matthew 5:

9"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

On personal wealth/capitalism:

Matthew 19:

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?" 17And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." 18He said to him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 20The young man said to him, "All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" 21Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. 23And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

On Charity/Socialism/Taking Care of the Disadvantaged

Matthew 25

34Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' 45Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

On the "inclusion" of those considered wicked or sinners:

Luke 7:

37(W)And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume,

38and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume.

39Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were (X)a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner."

40And Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he replied, "Say it, Teacher."

41"A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred [b](Y)denarii, and the other fifty.

42"When they (Z)were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?"

43Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have judged correctly."

44Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you (AA)gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.

45"You (AB)gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet.

46"(AC)You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume.

47"For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."

On the vocal "Moral Authority" and pious "Religious Right" of his day:

Matthew 23:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. 13"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

On judging others, for instance basing someone's godliness based on their religious or political doctrines:

Matthew 7:

1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?

***

So as you can see, Jesus had some radical philosophies. Jesus was a revolutionary who challenged the status quo, and showed that no one was disposable... that mercy and grace were available to all. Even those the religious authority of that day either condemned or threw away.

This undermined the power of the Religious Leaders. So they stirred up the crowd until Jesus was murdered by a popular vote. Note it wasn't Pontius Pilate nor the Sanhedrin who ultimately decided. It was an angry, fearful, disillusioned mob.

Think about that next time someone uses your faith to make you scared or angry.

If you truly adopt the title "Christian" which simply means "Christ Like", then you must therefore adopt some of these radical, "socialist" ideals.

Love. Tolerance. Mercy. Forgiveness. Compassion. Charity. Without judgment and without begrudging your duty or sacrifice along the way.

Neo-Conservatives like Beck have tried to corner the market on morality by focusing on a few issues to keep us divided because that's the only way a small determined group can control the majority of their followers to essentially vote against their principles and their own self-interest. They have much to personally gain from this behavior and sadly it is all too effective.

That they do it based on fear and division then try to cloak it in evangelical sanctimony makes it even worse.

Before you question my patriotism or my faith, take a look at the man in whom most of those beliefs were founded. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Jesus.

It is said that Liberal Democrats want "socialize" our country. I charge that far more threatening than "spreading the wealth" and ensuring an equal America for everyone is the contrasting idea of fascism... which is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Sound familiar?

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis.

We Shall Overcome

2010-08-27T21:35:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow marks the 47th anniversary of one of the most important moments in our nation's history, when the great Dr. Martin Luther King delivered the soul stirring speech "I Have a Dream" under the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial.

It was a fitting spot for such a speech. Abraham Lincoln himself basically gave birth to the civil rights movement by taking a stand against the institution of slavery and using his office as President to set free those who would be kept in bondage just for the color of their skin.

It is something many modern Americans can probably never fully fathom. We cannot know what it was like not to have the right to our own lives, to go where we want to go, to do what we want to do or say the things we want to say.

People *think* they know, but they can't ever really truly know what it meant to be considered property rather than a person.

Even Sarah Palin, who feels that she has some understanding of having her rights circumvented simply because the court of public opinion has harshly judged her, cannot understand what it once meant for women to not hold political office, not own property or have any vote aside from their husband.

For minorities these rights were hard won. In the case of LGBT Americans, these rights are still an ongoing battle that has not yet been won despite minor victories in limited states.

None of us can probably understand what it meant to own property that was taken away by newly formed courts who spoke in a language we could not understand. We cannot know what it was like that a person of another race won their right to dominate simply because they were the majority.

Despite the rally cry against prayer in school or the fear the Bible will be outlawed, we really don't understand what it is like as the majority Christian faith to have our religion vilified in the court of public opinion to the point we can no longer build a church due to a vehement outcry.

The Civil Rights movement was to restore these grievous wrongs for Americans of every race, religion or gender. It is meant to restore the honor of our country's fundamental principle that *all* Americans are created equal. These are not rights that are up to the vote of the majority of the public (such as California's Prop 8) - they are inalienable.

The will of the voter should never usurp the constitution. If it does, even once, the entire fabric of our nation will unravel like a cheap rug and *everyone's* rights will be at risk.

As a nation we have made huge strides to fix where this structure has broken. We have fought for the vote of all of us to be counted, the right for all of us to have a voice.

We still have a long way to go to reach Dr. King's prophetic words that aspire to a world that sees beyond color and creed to judge each person by their individual worth.

In Dr. King's era, being black meant you were separated, disdained and oppressed in a very legal, socially acceptable way. Those of us in our generation cannot understand what it meant to sit at the back of the bus, to be turned away from restaurants, schools and churches because of the color of our skin.

We cannot understand what it meant to try and drink from a fountain that wreaked of a bigot's urine, whose illogical hatred just because you were "different" was stoked by public acceptance.

We cannot comprehend what it meant to have crosses burned on our yards, or to be tied to cars and drug for miles for nothing more than the way we were born.

We think of the word "lynch" the way we think of the word "crucifixion". We know what it means by definition, but we can never truly appreciate the horror of the act because we have never had to face the looming reality that it could happen to us.

And it is a good thing we cannot fully understand these travesties. It means we've definitely gone beyond those dark times. We've made great strides and we've done it by following the example of the great Dr. King - by fighting hatred with love. By fighting fear with enlightenment.

This is what transforms the world. This is what will inevitably bring peace.

And we've still got a long way to go, as any LGBT or Muslim American will tell you.

It tears at my soul that someone such as Glenn Beck can take a day such as the anniversary of this great speech to try and rewrite the civil rights movement. He wants to "reclaim" it as a white American who does not truly understand what it means to be oppressed. He does it not because he wants to see this country better; he wants to see it the way it used to be.

It should never go back to the way it used to be.

Despite how many people show up to Beck's demonstration tomorrow, I know in my heart that it will never tarnish the dream that Martin Luther King had, and that so many of us still aspire to.

Hatred and fear will never change the course that was set in place that day. It is a river that flowed out of the childhood of our nation as we were, as Lincoln said, "test[ed] whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

They are as they have always been just sticks and rocks that we have to navigate around, but I promise you - our river will still run uninterrupted.

That is what liberty is to me. That is what justice is to me. That is what America is to me.

The only way this powerful movement can change is if we change it. If we turn the tide to become like that of our detractors through hate and fear and go back on our very own principles, then we lose what this country represents. If we replace that love and that faith and that hope with things like fear and hatred and bigotry, then we are never going to be truly free. We're just going to chain ourselves to that fear and hate each other because of it.

This works for the likes of Glenn Beck, whose only interest is his own bottom line. He doesn't care about America. In true capitalist fashion he has found a niche to fill by the outcry of those who are afraid. He's not leading a movement to get others to fight for the common good. He's getting a bunch of individuals to fight for themselves out of their own selfish gain so that he will always have a platform from which to spew his endless vitriol.

That's not America. That's not the United States.

Like Abraham Lincoln quoted from the Bible itself, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Therefore the challenge is simply this. Today look beyond your own circumstances, see the world not as it was or as it is, but as it can be. Do one thing, just one thing, to make it the world that Dr. King spoke so eloquently about in his passionate speech.

Today let that dream live on in you. Do this by refusing to respond to hate and finding your courage to live in love. Love for ourselves, our fellow man and for our great nation.

And know that as you do, no matter what else is done to us or around us, We Shall Overcome.

So maybe it's just me...

2010-08-25T15:38:00.000-07:00

I'm a little befuddled.

I don't understand how people can vehemently excuse the inexcusable. I mean, the things that some argue make no sense whatsoever.

I just don't know if we need to blame the education system, poor parenting, alcohol sponsored testosterone drenched pass times or what.

Clearly some of you have opted for the blue pill.

Here are some examples of what I mean.

Many of you might have taken part in the epic Battle of the Bigot right here on my blog talking about the so called "Ground Zero Mosque" (so named because apparently Islamic Cultural Center A Few Blocks From Ground Zero won't fit on a protest sign). We had one detractor who decided to weigh in on the topic but it was a rather circular argument that defied any and everything that didn't fit into this very narrow brand of "logic". She kept spewing quotes from the Quran that may or may not have been out of context. Of course she'll never know because she doesn't trust anything in the English translation of the Quran that doesn't fit her agenda... saying the English translation of the Quran is somehow meant to mislead or misinform (yet that is what she uses as the crux of her argument - interesting).

And when I countered with equally out of context Biblical quotes I got to hear how those were "cultural" and no longer in effect today.

Uh... yeah.

She invoked the name of Christ then flat out ignored any passages from the Bible that had anything to do with pacifism or peace.

It was really quite astonishing, but not QUITE as astonishing as hearing the likes of Sarah Palin encourage Dr. Laura Schlessinger not to "retreat" but to "reload" and protect her First Amendment rights (i.e. fight for the right to utter epithets on national radio). This was in the same year Palin publicly called for the head of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel after he used the, per Palin, equally offensive word "retarded" in a private, closed door meeting. So Dr. Laura can say the word "nigger" eleven times to a black person where everyone can hear, and she gets to keep her job. A liberal says the word "retarded" just once in a closed door meeting - talking about the very same group Rush Limbaugh gleefully calls a bunch of "retards" (with Palin's blessing!) - and he needs to resign.

But if that doesn't take the cake, Fox "News" delivered the piece de resistance by getting people all riled up over the "Ground Zero Mosque" - when their own shareholder Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (a Muslim) HELPED TO FUND THE PROJECT. By $305,000 - no doubt earned by the advertisers who pay to keep folks like race baiting Glenn Beck on the air.

No wait, it gets better.

Not only does he pay this money into the project, but Fox "News" does this whole "expose" on "Follow the Money" to prove that the Imam behind the Cordoba Initiative is a bad guy. They allude - don't prove but ALLUDE - that he might have ties to Iran or Muslim extremist groups and that's where this money is coming from... all the while IGNORING COMPLETELY that the real money trail leads right to the doors of Fox News.

But of course it comes out because of that horrible "liberal media" and no body bats an eye because they know you as a populous will buy whatever it is they dish out.

It's the equivalent of being in a relationship with Fox "News", walk in on them having sex with the next door neighbor they've encouraged you to hate, and telling you flat to your face it's not them.

And you buy it.

What the hell have you been smoking?

Seriously. Someone explain it to me because I don't get it.

Because of their hate baiting now one in five Americans now believe that the President is Muslim (which is okay for a Fox News shareholder but bad for the White House), and protest a cultural center in Manhattan where two other mosques are located because of it's so called Hallowed Ground. Never mind that in the equally hallowed ground of the Pentagon there have been interfaith prayer rooms since 2001 where Muslims were allowed to pray. We can somehow forget those pesky, tiny facts.

And now people who look like Muslims are getting verbally attacked, Muslim cab drivers are getting knifed and mosques are being targeted around the country, including those that haven't been built yet.

The best part? You all still claim it has nothing to do with religious freedom or bigotry... and that your First Amendment rights give you the right to fight against another American's First Amendment rights.

You're either the biggest bunch of idiots I've ever seen OR you're just plain evil.

You tell me.

The Jesus People See

2010-08-15T09:45:00.000-07:00

For a lot of folks, Christianity is a religion based on a book written a very long time ago, which does nothing more than give people the right to judge, criticize and ostracize other people. Many automatically distrust Bible-thumpers, as they've become known, probably because they figuratively thump other folks on the head underneath oppressive scripture that amounts to a laundry list of what is and mostly is not acceptable.

Their life is so full of rigid rules and dire consequences it just sucks the joy right out of them and makes them nothing more than militant sourpusses.

I was walking at the park several weeks back with my tattooed, rock t-shirt wearing son and we happened to pass a couple of these people. The older gentleman wore his faith proudly on a camouflage t-shirt (red flag) that proclaimed JESUS in big bold letters. Problem was, the guy looked like he just sucked down about five gallons of lemonade without the benefit of sugar.

Perhaps he was threatened or offended by my son, which might have been why my son's cheery, "How's it going?" went unanswered as they walked briskly by.

I gotta tell ya... it's poor advertising.

A preacher I used to listen to put it thusly: The only Jesus people see, is the Jesus in you and the Jesus in me.

When we tack on "Christian" to ourselves, we're literally representing Christ.

The problem is, however, most people aren't representing Jesus the man as much as they're representing Jesus the Corporation.

There is nothing in the packaging of corporate religion that would appeal to someone who isn't at the end of their rope. Sure we can feed you for free thanks to missions and church food drives, but what about the guy who is just meandering through life searching for a deeper meaning?

He's gonna take one look at the exclusive club of Christianity, especially in its current American condition, and bolt.

All are welcome!

As long as you pray like we do, look like we do, think like we do, vote like we do, talk like we do and judge like we do.

This creates this atmosphere of fear and distrust between the two parties, and Jesus is no where to be found in the equation.

Picture if you will a young man in his faded jeans and his rock n roll t-shirt. Imagine his long, flowing hair and scattered piercings or tattoos. This guy goes into a nice, middle America church and tries to give this Christianity thing a chance. Only after many awkward moments as the congregation files by him dressed in their Sunday best, the deacons in their three piece suits come over to gently take this fellow aside.

"You're going to have to leave. You're scaring the congregation."

Dejected the man departs. As he lumbers down the steps of the church he runs into another long haired fellow devoid of a suit or even shoes on his feet. When our guy looks into the face of this other dark skinned man with radiant eyes, he realizes that it is Jesus.

"Jesus!" he says. "I tried to go to your church but they kicked me out."

"That's okay," Jesus replies with a knowing smile. "They don't let me in there either."

I kinda think at this point of our story Jesus would hug this man - this outsider that religion had rejected. He just always had that way.

Which brings us to the most beautiful story I've read in quite a long while. As someone who has sort of taken on the mantle of fighting conservative Christianity and their iron fist on Jesus, this was a tale that restored my hope that power of the Jesus that I know was still working wonders in today's world.

You see, some people find a religion to be right. Others find a religion to be transformed.

For all the protests and megaphones and signs and chanting that religious folks do at things like strip clubs and Gay Pride events, they only reach a few self flagellating souls who were already at the end of their rope.

But for those people just searching for a place to belong, to be loved and accepted, it takes brave things like this to reach them. You only need to read the comments to know just how transformational it really was.

I present: I Hugged a Man in His Underwear. And I am Proud.

Lazy Thinkin' is Just Stinkin' Thinkin'

2010-08-14T19:09:00.000-07:00

So I understand there's this big hullabaloo regarding a possible mosque near Ground Zero. I, personally, don't see what all the fuss is about other than some of you folks out there just really get a lot out of being offended. You'll play that card as quick as you can and as often as you can with even the slightest provocation.

This of course isn't directly meant for those who lost loved ones in that terrible tragedy... we're talking about the big mouthed outsiders *cough*Sarah Palin*cough* who are using this opportunity to stir the pot *cough*John Boehner*cough for their own personal gain *cough*Fox News*cough*choke*hack*.

It's really quite tiring keeping up with some of you. I can see why you found a safe haven amidst the whiny crybabies over at all those teabag rallies, where misapplied anger and illogical indignation play just likes strings on a Tennessee fiddle.

What... exactly... is the harm of building a mosque in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the country?

"It's on the site of 9/11!! That's hallowed ground!!"

Um... no. It's actually *near* the site of 9/11 in the not so hallowed ground of a former Burlington Coat Factory. And while we're on the topic, it's not even really a mosque but an Islamic cultural center. So I'm still not seeing the problem.

Especially since also within blocks of Ground Zero, on this supposedly "hallowed ground", sit TWO good ol American STRIP CLUBS and a LINGERIE STORE.

Naked women in skimpy clothing? No one bats an eye. Center for religious tolerance and education? Well, clearly they must be stopped.

"They killed over 3000 Americans in 9/11!"

Actually, no *they* did not. The entire Muslim world is not responsible for a deviant sect run by a madman who uses religion to control those who have misapplied anger and illogical indignation. *cough*Fred Phelps*cough*

What I find especially interesting is that people will say this comment and usually precede it with "I'm not a racist/bigot but..."

Not to disparage your education but the definition of a bigot is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Protesting a building that will house a differing point of view kind of applies here. You're judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few - that, at its heart - is bigotry.

Throwing bigotry and fear on top of misapplied anger and illogical indignation is how you get events like 9/11. Just sayin'.

"Islam is a violent religion!"

If we're going to split hairs about the casualties of religion, Christianity doesn't come off much better after things like, oh I dunno... The Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem witch hunts, the KKK and Timothy McVeigh. People who say this usually pick a few passages out of an entire book they haven't read. Apparently they haven't read the Bible either because it is pretty darned violent in some spots - ironically all outside of what actually deals with Jesus. Jesus was a pacifist of the highest order, which is probably why he was murdered by an angry few in authority who were afraid of his radical new message about peace and forgiveness.

Hum... sounds familiar....

"Doesn't this shlub Obama read history? The Muslims for centuries have built mosques on top of areas where there have won a major victory. They believe that killing over 3000 Americans is a major victory." - (word for word question from a Palin supporter on her Facebook page)

Um... yeah. Just to be clear... what was the "victory" that "Muslims" won here? Three thousand lives were lost in a very tragic and bloodthirsty event on American soil. But the thing that sect - not the Muslim religion but a DEVIANT SECT - sought to combat was our western culture. It still thrives as normal in clear defiance of this attack, as evidenced by the fact that we won't blink an eye as a culture about a couple of strip clubs within walking distance of this revered crime scene.

Plus we went over and bombed the bejeezus out of Iraq and killed about 100,000 people (and counting). Considering that over 90 percent of Iraqis are Muslim, I think we got em covered on the whole "eye for an eye" thing by ten fold. Especially when they weren't even responsible for 9/11... but that's another blog entirely.

The only way that the DEVIANT SECT has any victory at all is if it changes us from who we are as a nation, if their actions make us turn our backs on our own principles that make this country great (such as religious freedom).

You know, kinda like when we turn our backs on the constitution and protest a mosque being built.

"But America is a Christian nation!"

Ya know... I realize history is more fun when you make up facts but if you dig up a lil document called the Treaty of Tripoli you'll find this little ditty:

"...the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

This was written in 1796. By our founding fathers... who weren't so "Christian" themselves. I mean obviously since this document was written to declare who we were as a nation to a foreign country.

Can you imagine the kind of stink it would raise if something like that was written today? Hoo boy.

Now before you get your knickers in a twist understand I'm not saying we can't participate in the Christian faith. That wonderful first amendment in the U.S. Constitution, written by those secular founding father dudes, ensures we can.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Doesn't that make you feel more American just reading it? These were the values our country was founded upon, and protecting these rights is our moral obligation.

Which kind of brings us full circle back to the issue of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero.

We don't have to join a mosque or even believe in what it teaches to support it being built. It has a right to be built on American soil - where patriots have fought and died for our freedoms making it the *ultimate* hallowed ground. This is true whether it's in New York City or in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where - not so ironically enough - they still criticize mosques being built and it's no where NEAR Ground Zero.

People, it is our job to honor and protect that right, especially if we want the right to build a Christian church right next door.

They're not special rights, they're the same rights, and they're not up for debate.

Maybe... just maybe... by extending these olive branches to those who are different and maybe even a lil' scary we'll learn that aside from some cultural stuff we're not that different and there's no need to fear.

And maybe... just possibly maybe... the seeds of peace will sow and we can learn the meaning of this sacred text:

"1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

The Benefit Without Sacrifice Mentality

2010-07-28T16:47:00.000-07:00

We are living in an age of entitlement. It is so pervasive that it permeates our society on a level so profound, it unravels the threads of our political and religious foundations.

This is especially true for so many so called Christians.

I say so called because in order to identify yourself with Christ, you have to adopt his mentality and his methodology. Jesus never would have adopted practices such as The Westboro cult that calls itself a church. If Jesus were to campaign, it wouldn't be for the likes of some of these conservative politicians who have made it their job to obstruct things like health care for the poor, charity for the under privileged or amnesty for the "illegal alien".

In fact, Jesus was so socialist that people like Glenn Beck are just a few missed doses away from telling you to boycott your church until he's removed.

But see the problem is a lot of religious folks have decided that they are entitled to stand in judgment of everyone else because of someone else's sacrifice. Christianity has become fire insurance for the soul. There's no transformation to think, act and do as Jesus did; just justification for very carnally minded hatred and bigotry.

Of course Christianity isn't the only religion that does this. Man created religion so it is inherently flawed. That's the reason wars are started in its name, rather than the peace many religions aspire to achieve.

Man is flawed, therefore what he creates is flawed. That's just the way it is.

But we tack on a deity in hopes that we are justified for our misdeeds rather than held accountable for them.

Many folks believe Christianity is nothing more than saying, "I'm sorry". They believe once God forgives them, the slate is wiped clean by the blood of another person.

That may be where it starts... but that's not the extent of true Christianity. You don't get to say what you want, do what you want and then just shrug away a sorry and it be okay.

In order to truly call yourself Christ-like, there is sacrifice. Sacrifice of pride, of self, of baser human emotion. It may be easier to hate someone who is different from you and love only those who share your viewpoint, but that's not Christian. In fact, Jesus even said that the most reviled people can do that. What takes courage, what takes sacrifice, is to reach out and love the unlovable. To give more than what is asked, even when it is taken dishonestly.

But entitlement demands that we deserve to feel what we feel even when we know it is in stark contrast to that which we claim to believe. We are entitled to our anger, to our hatred, to our pride. And since someone made the ultimate sacrifice, we can have all that and get the good stuff too.

This also applies to being an American and all those pious flag wavers who never fought in any war, who only get out and vote when they've been duped into doing so based on all their entitlement trigger points. They're the ones who don't make enough to pay taxes (and get yearly refunds of every dime they paid and then some), yet want to bitch and moan about someone else living for free off of their hard earned money.

Nothing gets someone more entitled to their rage than someone else's entitlement.

We want the right to live in the "best country in the world", yet we don't trust the government and fight against spending even one cent toward making things any better. It's just easier to lament from our comfortable armchairs how bad and scary things are rather than to give anything of ourselves to make sure someone else's existence is any better.

As if where we're born or what we believe is justification enough to wallow in this entitlement.

No one is willing to sacrifice anything more than some hot air to pontificate on how much they deserve or are entitled to. When it comes to paying a few more taxes, God forbid. When it comes to extending Christ like mercy, love and acceptance to someone who is different, we simply turn the Bible page and find scriptures that support our very justified entitlement.

(That means they're telling someone ELSE to change.)

What a self absorbed, selfish bunch of entitled brats we've all become.

You want the benefit of being American... roll up your sleeves and do more than complain about the way things are. Sacrifice to make it so. Give a dollar more, spend a moment more, learn just a smidgen more to become an asset to the country rather than just a leech.

You want the title of Christian - become Christ like. Crucify that selfish nature that says you deserve anything more than what you've already been given. Stop breeding the hate in your heart and calling it holy. Let all biases and bigoted, small minded thinking die on its own cross. Stop using the sacrifice of another as a stepping stone to do all the things he steadfastly spoke against.

Find out the needs of someone else, someone different, a total stranger even, and meet their needs. Even if it's a kind word of encouragement that builds someone up rather than tears them down. Try to look at the world from someone else's point of view and empathize that could have been you, and how you would like to be treated... and treat them that way.

For one day, live this Chinese proverb:

"It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness."

Let the only thing we're ever entitled to is to leave this earth and all the lives we touch a little better than how we found it.

So ...Illegal Immigration. What gives?

2010-05-15T07:50:00.000-07:00

I haven't brought up the subject much in the past because to be quite honest, I'm rather ambivalent about it. I've lived in Los Angeles where there are quite a few immigrants and different cultures and languages, but I haven't really felt any burning need to "white wash" society because of it.

And make no mistake - that's exactly what the whole underlying fear of "illegal aliens" is all about.

If these immigrants were from Europe or Canada or any other place with a Caucasian face, no one would say diddly squat about it.

That new law in Arizona? You think they're going to be asking for the papers of anyone whose skin is not brown?

There's this underlying paranoia in this country that we have to save our stuff from "them", which is a nice nondescript way of saying "anyone who is different". If they look different, speak different, or have different cultures automatically they become a threat.

And here's the kicker. The people in power recognize this and use it to their advantage.

They no more care about fixing illegal immigration than they care about making abortion illegal. These are talking points and easy voting platforms where they can stir up the worst in humanity to keep your attention away from the people behind the curtain.

Odds are the people speaking the loudest against illegal immigration are also the ones who voted to allow tax loopholes for US corporations to send their jobs overseas for huge tax breaks.

They might also be the ones who employ people under the table to maintain their houses or their lawns to do the "dirty work" for less pay most legal American citizens wouldn't do even on their best day.

Many of these anti-immigration folks are the same ones who have never stepped foot out of this country but maintain it's the "greatest country in the world" - yet somehow it's an exclusive group that no one else can join.

This is especially ironic given the fact most of us of European (*cough*white*cough) descent invaded this country and took it away from the darker skinned natives and forced our government and our dominance over them.

Yet now there's all this fear that those scary "aliens" are going to take what we've rightfully stolen.

"They're gonna take our jobs!"

Eh, not really. In fact there are many economists who believe that immigrants (legal or not) actually stimulate the economy by creating more demand for services and goods, thereby creating more jobs overall.

Not to mention the anger here is completely misguided toward the undocumented worker. If they are "taking American jobs", then why not go after the *Americans* who are hiring them under the table so they can 1.) pay them less and 2.) avoid paying taxes.

Sounds like the real cheats in that equation are the ones we grew right here at home.

"My taxes support them!"

This one always makes me chuckle as it is often someone from a red state that doesn't even make enough money to pay taxes who is complaining about it.

Maybe they've received this interesting email about a Florida mother whose eight "anchor babies" ensure she gets $1500 a month per kid.

Again, not true. Per the Florida Department of Children & Families one needs to be a legal immigrant to even get benefits, and even in that scenario the mother AND all eight kids would get a max of under $700 for the entire family.

There's some livin', right there! Boy oh boy they're just ALL getting rich, aren't they?

"They're causing the crime rate to skyrocket!"

Not according to an FBI report. In Arizona, where such a claim was used to pass through the Anti-Immigrant bill, instances of crime actually had been on the decline.

In fact, some reports show that undocumented workers are less likely to commit crimes than their American counterparts.

"We have to change everything to accommodate their cultures and languages."

This part is probably true. If you want someone's business, you should probably learn their language.

But it's not like they're slipping through to change our laws into a language we don't understand so that they can take our homes and our land.

So as you can see, all the anti-immigrant arguments are basically bunk to hide what the true sentiment really is: "You're different. Therefore I must hate you."

And I can always tell when it's a racist, hate-filled agenda when the opposition uses the term "alien". Generally whoever uses the term is on the "anti" side of the fence. They will use terms like that to strip these immigrants of their humanity so it's a lot easier to hate them.

Ah-merica.

What's especially ironic? A lot of those "alien" hatin' folks on the Right are also those who are most vocally religious.

So what does the Bible have to say about illegal aliens?

Deuteronomy 10:18-19:

18"He executes justice for (A)the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.

19"(B)So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33-34:

33'(A)When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.

34'The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and (B)you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

But I guess Leviticus only applies when it's talking against homosexuality.

So what's say we stop the hate and stand up for truly just reform and stop chasing the straw man?

"It is finished."

2010-04-01T12:39:00.001-07:00

Tomorrow marks "Good Friday", and as a Christian I've always had trouble with this concept. It's very confusing to tell a child to love Jesus - who was the personification of God's love - and then accept his brutal death on our account as "good". Instead I think it should be called "Necessary Friday".

There are many things that are necessary that aren't necessarily "good" - and I think this falls under that. It's needed to facilitate Easter (which is where the real triumph is, IMO), but in reality it's losing a limb to save a life.

In my own particular worship of this sacrifice and what this day means to me personally, it has also taken on a world view with many political and spiritual ramifications. This is especially true when I see how so many people view this one instance so very differently. It truly can mean something different to each one of us, and to be perfectly honest I feel that's where we both fail and succeed as humans, so limited in our concept of an all knowing, all loving God.

I think this is illustrated perfectly in the debate of holy warfare.

There are a great many people who have decided that they need to take up the sword and by force and by might render the "enemy" defenseless. This is why so many good God fearing Christians can support things like war, which comes at the price of innocent lives lost. It comes back to the "good" vs. "necessary" argument. So many feel that a few lives (and souls) lost now can mean many more lives and souls saved in the future, and any destruction or devastation is simply collateral damage to ensure the greater good.

While I understand that to a degree, I kind of think more along the lines of Jesus in this way. There's a great line in "Jesus of Nazareth" where he tells Peter, "You think as men think. Not as God thinks."

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. Imagine that you lived your life for only one purpose; to bring peace and love to a lost humanity to reconcile God and his creation. He guided us and taught us out of the love and forgiveness it would require of him to make this willing sacrifice. Think how he must feel when he sees blood shed in his name after he had already paid the ultimate, painful, agonizing price to defeat sin and death.

Dunno bout you but it breaks my heart.

Some think we cannot know this level of mercy and love because Jesus wasn't a mere human... but I say he was more human than any one of us. He could feel love, he could feel anger. He could laugh, and he could cry.

And he could feel pain - pain like none of us have likely ever endured or will in our lifetime.

He was the best of humanity in human form. Yet somehow we have forsaken this.

So many of us take our communion and wear our Sunday best to church to remember the sacrifice he made as more of a historical event instead of the liberation it was meant to be. We think of it as a miracle passed, instead of living currently in the promise.

It's important to remember what he went through, no question. But I think even more important is to know *why* he went through it. Because if we do, then we realize that everything he died for then is still in effect today. And you know how we know? Because of those three words he uttered when the deed was done.

"It is finished."

If you are Christian and believe that Jesus did in fact die for your salvation, and that God in fact allowed his beloved son to be tortured and reviled for your sin - then on a very basic fundamental level you agree with that statement. You believe that the act of his crucification was a price paid not just for your minor transgressions but for the transgressions of mankind as a whole; that the evil nature of man was rectified with God and balance was restored.

We don't have to take up the sword to bring him back or to fulfill the Biblical prophesy for Armaggedon. It is finished.

We don't have to wage war against each other for perceived failures or theoretical differences. It is finished.

We don't have to force others to go by our own limited laundry list of good and evil to save *their* souls. It is finished.

It was all a done deal that Necessary Friday two thousand years ago.

So why, inside of us, does that battle still rage on? Because we've been deceived to believe that the miracle of his death and resurrection was a moment in history - something to recall every year over ham and colorful dyed eggs. Something to remember as we sip grape juice and nibble tasteless crackers that get passed around in silver or gold trays.

But do we ever really, truly remember the most important part of this story? That love - not violence... life - not death... is the real miracle?

Do we want to remember the nails driven into human flesh - or the hands that willingly opened themselves to take that pain so we wouldn't have to?

Do we want to remember a man dying on a cross in the limits of human flesh? Or blowing open a grave with the promise of immortality?

Where is the victory if we're still on the battlefield?

It is finished.

So on this Necessary Friday, remember the incredible love it had to take to make the sacrifice, rather than just the sacrifice itself.

And in doing so...

Find your own love to reach out to someone else.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

2010-03-10T13:34:00.000-08:00

Recently you asserted that anyone who attends a church that upholds its role with social justice should leave that church because things like "social justice" and "economic justice" are code words.

Indeed they are. They are code words for "Christian".

Luke 18:18-23

[18] A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

[19] "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone. [20] You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

[21] "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

[22] When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

[23] When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.

[24] Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! [25] Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[26] Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

[27] Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

[28] Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"

[29] "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God [30] will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

The meaning of this text is clear. If you want to truly follow Christ you must put him first above all things, including your own possessions. Our love for him must be far and away more important than our own material goods (which, by the way, are replaceable, and which - if you'll read this text thoroughly - are promised to increase several fold in this life if we simply surrender it over to God).

If the true definition of Christian is to be "Christ-like", then I can be nothing OTHER than a Christian who believes in the biblical call to social justice.

We are called, repeatedly, to forsake things like material possessions and reach out to those in need all through the gospels. Jesus even said in Matthew 25 the things we do for the least of our people we do for Jesus himself.

He also couples this with the stern warning that things we do not do for these, we also do not do for Jesus himself. He instructs these unfortunate folks to "depart from him", saying they are cursed.

So we have some choices here. We can be the rich young ruler, or the cursed souls who could not be bothered giving of themselves or their resources to those in need - both of which lose out on Jesus....

Or we could be like Jesus himself, who was the epitome of mercy, charity and love. And it was unconditional for all, which is the heart of the anti-socialist argument. People argue that socialism basically isn't fair. "Why should I work so hard and give my money to someone who refuses to work at all?"

What is the fairness, I wonder, of the command of Jesus to offer willingly to those who want to take from you, even more than what they have taken? (Matthew 5:40)

If we seek to compartmentalize or qualify what deserves our justice or mercy, for instance saying because a crack addict chose their actions then they "deserve what they get" - that too is going against what Jesus and the Bible teaches. It is protecting what is yours by using convenient stereotypes and blanket statements that are at their very heart unfair.

If a modern religion seeks to profit self first (especially with the tax issue - refer to Romans 13), and community last (Ezekiel 34), then that is the false doctrine per the Holy Bible.

Scripture says that we cannot serve two masters, God and money - Matthew 6:24 - which means I cannot follow any doctrine that puts material gain over things like mercy and justice.

If I need to "report" this to anyone, it is only to God alone who is my one and only judge.

If your religion and your church teaches anything other than this, you might want to consider leaving YOUR church, because what they are teaching is not Biblically founded.

The Bible, and Jesus - the author of the Christian faith - are very very clear on this matter.

Matthew 23

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.

11 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; 12 whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. 13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?

23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Ezekiel 34

4"Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them.

Now, if all this hubbub was nothing more than a way to get more ratings in some kind of "shock jock" fashion - be aware that you will have to answer for this one day.

I hope the ratings and the attention were worth it.

Matthew 15:7-9

7"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

10After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand.

11" It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

Sarah Palin's argument is completely retarded.

2010-02-21T09:33:00.000-08:00

As you are probably aware, especially if you read my Douchebag of the Day blog, Sarah Palin has been quite verbal recently in her outrage over the use of the word "retarded". As the mother of a special needs child, she feels that this sort of language ranks right up there with the "n" word, and wants people who say it to be held accountable for their lack of decency.

Well... most people.

Okay, only one person.

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel popped off during a closed door meeting, calling some liberal activists "f*cking retarded". When Palin got wind of it she immediately went into a Facebook tirade calling for his dismissal.

Interestingly enough, her ol buddy ol pal Rush Limbaugh said that Palin wasn't going to criticize him for using the term "retard" because she's a fan of his work.

She must be, because the only real criticism leveled against Rush was through her spokesperson, a pretty ambiguous statement that didn't bother mentioning Rush by name.

No, Sarah herself said that she "agreed" with Rush Limbaugh's assessment of her political adversaries - that they are "kooks" (which in this definition is interchangeable with the word he used, which was the highly charged "retards"), and that his use of the word was clearly "satire".

Now, I could go into the fact that the same group of people (liberals) were defined by both men with the same word, and how her getting her knickers in a twist over one and not the other demonstrates her own blind partisan biases. (and no, the mealy mouthed soundbite from her "spokesperson" doesn't count.)

All of this is completely obvious to anyone who is paying any kind of attention.

But here's the interesting thing, and one that deserves more attention.

Does anyone out there actually know what the difference is between the word "retarded" and "retards"?

There is one, and it's a very, very important difference.

One is an adjective and one is a noun that is considered "offensive slang".

Main Entry: re·tard·ed
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈtär-dəd\
Function: adjective
Date: 1895

sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

Also:

re·tard 1 (re TARD)
v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards
v.tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
v.intr.
To be delayed.
n.
1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
2. Music A slackening of tempo.

The word "retard" (as in re TARD) and "retarded" is not limited to people who are considered mentally challenged. It is simply used whenever there is limited or delayed progress. That can and does include certain special needs folks, but it's not limited to that, and therefore it's not inherently meant offensively.

On the other hand, the word "retard" (as in REE tard) was created specifically to disparage those who fell under that definition, and is always - ALWAYS - considered offensive, whether used in satire or not.

re·tard 2 (REE tard)
n. Offensive Slang
1. Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
2. A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.

Therefore the word "retard" (as in RE tard) is the word similar to "nigger", "fag", "kike" etc.

A word, mind you, that Sarah Palin has gone on record saying she *agrees* with, even when used repeatedly and against someone like our president, because it was used for the sake of "satire".

Let's just try them both out in a sentence, shall we? "Sarah Palin's defending Rush Limbaugh's use of the word retard is completely retarded."

Now let's take out those lightning rod terms and use their definition.

"Sarah Palin's defending Rush Limbaugh's use of an offensive slang to disparage an entire group of people who are mentally retarded (interchangeable here with foolish or stupid) completely demonstrates limited intellectual, emotional or academic growth."

You betcha it does.

Neither term is considered politically correct thanks to the slang that surrounds the word "retard" (as in REE tard). Therefore using either can be offensive and disrespectful, and probably best avoided.

Literally speaking, however, Rahm's use of the word was the lesser offense. (Note: HE apologized.)

As for an arrogant, loudmouthed provocateur like Limbaugh, Sarah's not going to call for his dismissal or question his decency (which further proves neither have any), and she's not going to expect or demand the apology he's already said he won't give.

And that is what is truly, completely retarded.

I'll see your fear tactic and raise you a righteous indignation

2010-02-19T05:16:00.000-08:00

It is an election year. For me, it's an election year in a district that is completely blood red - who virtually oppose everything that I believe.

The people I wouldn't vote for are in power now, locally and regionally, and they do not care about what I care about. When I write my congressmen and women I get nice little form letters that tell me that sure there are problems... but what I want won't really fix anything.

Yet oddly they offer no solution - just an argument against any solution posed from across the aisle. And I basically sit through these tired, typical political ads ready to pop a vein because they're completely fear driven, based on half truths and deliberate misinformation.

This one started out simply enough... a lady said she was a breast cancer survivor. I almost thought it was one of those ads for the hospitals that deal directly with cancer patients, but I was soon all too aware it was nothing more than emotional manipulation to drive our fear driven district into action against health care reform.

The tip off was the use of the word "government" as a pejorative. We have the greatest country in the world!! But we can't trust the government to run anything!

Except the military, the judicial system, education, transportation, police, firefighters... even Medicare (which btw is the evil socialized health care already in place that HCR is supposed to be threatening.)

Do you folks even know what you're fighting against anymore??

Per this woman's "testimony", she was fortunate enough to live in the great USofA to get treated for her cancer, which is why she's alive today. God forbid she'd live somewhere like the UK, who she claims has a higher mortality rate for cancer than the US, where she'd have likely DIED because it would take her months to see a doctor.

Scary stuff, huh?

Too bad it ISN'T TRUE.

Factcheck.org blew the lid off of this phony baloney tactic last year when they confronted the American Cancer Society themselves regarding the comment made, that asserted "300,000 women might have died" if we had a government run health care system like England. A spokesperson for the ACS said that the figure itself is unreliable because it's nothing they have ever said or would ever say.

That's problem one with this ad.

The second is that even if it was true (and it's not), it wouldn't qualify as a true comparison because the HCR our government is currently deciding on is not a single payer, government run option.

That's what many of us on the left *want*, mind you... but that's not what's happening. We were willing to settle for a public option instead, which was simply an option for those who couldn't afford the high (and increasingly higher) cost of health insurance.

The answer is right there in the name, folks. A public (that's you!) having an option (that's a choice!). Quit throwing a tantrum or else we're going to have to leave the store and go home.

No, what's happening is we're going to see stuff pass saying we have to get insurance, but no real alternatives for those people who can't afford it simply because of ads like this. It's meant to motivate people too damn stupid to fight for their own good, none of whom are going to be happy until they kill every good thing about the bill out of irrational fear and blinding ignorance.

Who'll end up winning big? Big insurance, as always.

And just guess who provided the "facts" for those numbers and statistics?

Go on. You can say it. It's okay.

Only in America will they spend more than a million dollars for an ad to fight against something that could have benefited from that same exact million dollars.

Here's my question... how many women who can't afford cancer treatment have died since September when this ad began to air? If they *really* wanted to save the lives of women, why not donate that million+ to provide charity care so the government doesn't HAVE to step in?

Ah-merica.

Here's the kicker. Here's what gets me every single freaking time. I live in a state that is supposed to be super duper religious. It's Jesus country down here in Texas, folks... except we conveniently forget what he commanded us to do when it might cost us something - like taxes the BIBLE SAYS we're supposed to pay.

When it comes to fighting "queers" in Houston, you're on board. You will devote huge segments out of their lives to ambush evil no good dirty sinners wherever they happen to hide to force them to repent out of shame and humiliation.

Never mind that Jesus didn't do that - EVER - in his ministry.

But heal the sick for free?

He did that PLENTY. (and commanded us to do the same)

What you're basically saying is that you'll fight for a baby to be born, but if it (or especially the mother) gets sick and needs care after that, it's not worth a few precious dollars out of your pocket to do anything about it.

You want to hear some statistics? How about the more than 40,000+ people who die each year because of a lack of medical coverage? They talk about waiting months to go see a doctor after finding a lump - what about the working class woman who has no medical coverage but makes too much money to qualify for medicaid. What happens to her when she finds a lump?

And what are you going to do about it, other than spread filthy dirty lies to scare the bejeezus out of people?

Ah, but what's a little denial among friends, right? As long as you refute facts, that means it doesn't exist. An age old obstructionist tradition.

Enjoy holding on to that when you go one day to meet your maker and have to answer why you fought so hard to care for the least of these... and in turn turned your very backs on Jesus himself, just so you could have more of your money in your pocket.

Matthew 25

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Woe to the Blind Guides

2010-02-15T03:36:00.001-08:00

Put a black man in the "White House" and watch America lose her freaking mind. Not only do you have what I would hope to be normally sane people latching on to any thread of a ridiculous lie they can to vilify Barack Obama (i.e. Birthers), but you have people supposedly of faith turning their back on Jesus in order to fulfill their carnal nature of blood, violence, fear and vengeance.

We're going to church today, folks.

Meet "Reverend" Wiley Drake, an Orange County religious sort who has his prayerful cross hairs trained right on our Commander in Chief with what is known as “Imprecatory Prayer". This is a prayer yanked from the Old Testament that basically says if you think your leader is evil you can pray for his death and God will answer you.

Forget that when Jesus came, he did so to be the last sacrifice needed or blood spilled for sin, and that with his pain and his torture (condoned and orchestrated by the religious leaders of his day, no less) all of us were set free of sin and death.

This vengeance hungry mentality that keeps the scriptures of violence and blood from the Old Testament is what is wrong with so many religions; it keeps their followers bound by two very ungodly emotions - namely HATE and FEAR.

Think I'm exaggerating? Here's a lil nugget from yet another perverted Pastor named Steven Anderson from Arizona: “I hate Barack Obama. You say, well, you just mean you don’t like what he stands for. No, I hate the person. Oh, you mean you just don’t like his policies. No, I hate him … I am not going to pray for his good. I am going to pray that he dies and goes to Hell.”

Hate, huh?

Let's see what the GOOD BOOK has to say about Hate...

1 John 3:14:

14We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

Whoa.. so that means hating someone and wishing for their death actually results in your own death?

Heavy.

"But Ginger... they were talking about our Christian brothers and sisters - not our enemies."

Oh really?

Let's see what that Jesus fella had to say about that. Turn in your Bibles to Matthew 5.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'

44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

48"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is in the chapter with the Beatitudes... but my guess is these hate mongers don't have much use for verses that say stuff like the meek will inherit the earth, or blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

It's just far too easy and too gratifying for the flesh to give in to these carnal desires for revenge and judgment - two things the Bible reserves for God ALONE.

And let's be very clear here... praying for someone to die for whatever you perceive their sins to be worthy of such condemnation is judgment.

But absolute power corrupts absolutely - and Jesus was no stranger to how the religious leaders perverted his most perfect purpose and the purposes of God. Tucked in Matthew Ch 5 is this lil gem:

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus took the issue straight to the Pharisees themselves in the Seven Woes in one of the rare instances that he showed true anger in the scriptures.

Never once did he protest a sinner's home or pray for the death of any of these leaders, bring weapons to the temple or encourage others to fear or to hate. His anger was reserved only for those who perverted the message of the scriptures for their own selfish purpose.

This is why religions are so set up on the things we can't do, because doing what the Bible SAYS to do is so unpleasant for the lazy nature of man.

Guess what? We're *supposed* to submit to our authorities (and pay taxes!).

Romans 13

1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Oops there's that loving the neighbor business again. That Jesus. Such a radical liberal... no wonder the Wingnuts want to change the Bible. People like these two, pitiful blind Pharisees, who are leading the blind and the foolish straight into the hell of their own creation.

But here's the kicker - though I am angered by their taking holy scripture and making it an assassin's creed, I do not pray for their death. Christ forgave them, and so should I.

This is never more important than when you pray.

Matthew 6

9"Pray, then, in this way:
'Our Father who is in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10' Your kingdom come
Your will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
11'Give us this day our daily bread.
12'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]'

(wait... it gets better!)

14"For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

15"But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

"But Ginger... aren't YOU being judgmental?"

No, I'm just going by the same Bible they use to fulfill their evil agenda.

Matthew 7

15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?

17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.

19" Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

20"So then, you will know them by their fruits.

21" Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22" Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'

23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

Judging, as is declaring a judgment for their sin up to and including death, that's up to God, not me. I had no use for George W Bush but I never wished the man dead, even when I thought him one of the bad trees.

It is ridiculous to judge someone else's sin when I, myself, am not perfect. In Matthew 7 Jesus referred to this as being a hypocrite, and Jesus has some pretty strong words about that.

Matthew 15:7-9

7"You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

10After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand.

11" It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

12Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?"

13But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.

14"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Not to mention if I wished him dead I was guilty in God's eyes of murdering him myself. (Matthew 5)

These so called leaders would do well to remember it. The Bible was never meant as a tool to control others - but to grow and develop within ones self and by that to lead others. My friend Tom pointed out the book of Ezekiel 34 to me, and if you read it you'll see it was set up to chastise these leaders who have turned from their holy purpose of leading their flocks, and toward their own selfish desires and controlling ways.

4"Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them.

Here's an interesting fact to note about the Bible. There are more scriptures denouncing hypocritical religious leadership than there are scriptures against homosexuality. Jesus spoke out - repeatedly - against one and not against the other at all...

Things that make you go hmmmm.

As Christians we need to worry more about doing the work of Jesus (acceptance, forgiveness, mercy, love, charity, healing) rather than try to call down the wrath of God. Only God knows the true heart of man - that's why vengeance should always - ALWAYS - be his alone.

Every religion who forsakes this doctrine for their own evil agendas is nothing more than a cult... and in this case spiritual terrorists.

Newsflash: I'm a bitch.

2010-01-21T17:15:00.000-08:00

A situation arose yesterday where the Lord of All Douchebags - Glenn Beck - made a disparaging "joke" about women, basically saying we all were psycho. Some of my female friends and I took this the wrong way apparently, because we were chastised by a Beck apologist who said it was simply a "joke" and we should all just "chill out".

None of us laughed at said "joke", nor did we "chill out". We took offense to it because the comment, when weighed against Beck's character (of which he has none), shows that the intent was inherently sincere.

With this comment Beck aligns himself with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who has ZERO respect for women (and any woman who stands for women's rights, calling us "feminazis"), standing strong for the male driven, rich white majority that thinks they still run the country.

And I, of course, did not stay silent about it.

Which of course pegs me as a psycho woman, or at the very least a "bitch" - which is simply code for a woman who speaks her mind whether folks like it or not, or goes after what she wants whether folks like it or not.

Some women take the word offensively, but I never have. I embrace the word. I've used it as a term of empowerment. So much so that my sons have learned that "son of a bitch" is not an insult. When called that they simply respond with, "Damn right. And proud of it."

A far worse word for women is "cunt", because it takes all the value of your humanity away and reduces you simply to a body part that, for far too many men, is our only usefulness.

So if anyone ever called me a "cunt", they'd see how big of a "bitch" I'd become.

"Bitch" is just a term given to women by men who don't have the courage or capacity to be anything more than one dimensional, which was Beck's point. He said that men are very straightforward. They want something to eat, something to f*ck, and to go to sleep.

For Beck and his ilk, maybe that's all they really need... a "cunt" that knows how to cook.

Women are a tad more complicated than that, and because of that he tags them as "psycho" simply because he doesn't have the depth of understanding enough to figure them out.

Somehow it's our fault that he's an idiot.

Women aren't hard to figure out IF you're paying attention. You're going to have to put some thought into the relationship, something more than "what's for dinner?" or "am I going to get lucky tonight?"

Women give their all in a relationship and want (and deserve) more than just a convenient partnership with it serves YOUR basic needs.

Like the line from my theme song states, to be my partner you're going to have to "take me as I am - this may mean you'll have to be a stronger man".

If that makes me a bitch... that's fine with me.

In fact I used to have a t-shirt that said, "I'm not A bitch, I'm THE bitch and it's MS. Bitch to you". I'd wear that to the grocery store and the crowds would part like the red sea.

A big woman who proclaims her bitchiness apparently can be rather intimidating.

That, and I have a very forceful personality when I choose to wield it. If you've read the bio to the right you'll see that I've got a lot of things going on (as do most) and it's contained in a package marked "contents may explode if overheated".

A friend of mine who shared my astrological sign told me it's all about being a Scorpio. That five people can walk into a room and say that it's cold outside, but if a Scorpio follows and makes the same statement people start to back up and tell us to calm down.

Which, incidentally, is the last thing you want to tell someone as it has the exact opposite effect.

And I know I come across a tad... arrogant... when I respond to the posts that get me fired up, especially when challenged. I've been accused of "not fighting fair", by looking for weaknesses and pouncing on them to make the other person look like an idiot.

To which I reply, I don't make anyone look like an idiot. They usually do a bang up job of that on their own. I'm simply illustrating the obvious.

I have very strong beliefs and I have no problem whatsoever making those beliefs known and, if need be, defending them as passionately as I feel they need to be defended.

But I resist the claim this makes me "psycho", especially since this word would not be used for a man who chooses to act in the same way.

If a man is aggressive, that's part of his nature - a primal reaction he needs to survive. If a woman is aggressive, it's either "that time of the month", she's a "bitch", or she's "hysterical".

Go ahead and Google the origin of the word "hysteria". I'll wait. I think you'll find it quite interesting, and it'll give a little extra depth to why women in particular wouldn't find Beck's "joke" very entertaining.

Quite simply it feeds into the whole feminine myth that women are less emotionally stable than men... which is total horseshit.

When an arrogant rich white man makes a comment like that, it's going to draw a very strong reaction. Which is why he made it, no doubt about it. But brushing it off as a joke is a cop out. I don't buy it and I won't stay silent about it, especially when I know I'm in the right.

Women with any shred of self respect - and enlightened men who actually like and respect women - can see that this was an ass backward comment, not a joke.

I played the same sound bite for my husband and my son, and both of them dropped their head in their hands and wanted to know the name of the asswhipe who was about to make their night a lot more turbulent.

A mad Ginger is not a fun Ginger.

They did not laugh, because they did not find it funny. Nor did a professional stand-up comedian who posted the link in the first place as just one more piece of evidence to show the Douchebagginess that is Glenn Beck.

But when you are the audience that Beck's particular brand of "entertainment" appeals to, apparently you can laugh at this locker room humor and not think there's anything wrong with it. They probably also like Rush Limbaugh, who can tell a female caller who questioned his quite questionable morals to "take the tampons out of her ears".

Sadly, there are people this brand of "entertainment" appeals to.

I am not one of these people. And I take issue with the people that are. Quite simply if you want to deride me for taking offense to an offensive blanket statement to a group that includes me as a woman, made primarily to OFFEND - you're an idiot.

This does not make me a psycho just because I happen to be female.

Get it right.

I'm not a bitch, I'm THE bitch... and it's Ms. Bitch to you.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love...

2010-01-14T21:39:00.000-08:00

But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:13

Perhaps one of my favorite passages in the Bible is the study on love. It's an important passage to remember, given that was the directive of Jesus to love each other as we love ourselves.

That gets lost a lot when people are more focused with self than others, and you see that demonstrated in living color when a catastrophe hits like the one that did in Haiti.

It's almost inconceivable to grasp the depth of the suffering, the loss of life and the scope of the devastation. Most people were inspired to do something - anything - to help alleviate the suffering in whatever way they can.

But there are a few coarse souls in this world who don't have one iota of compassion simply because it happened to a distant "them", a group of people so very different than those they deem deserving of such an emotion. Some seek personal gain out of it, such as the likes of Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh - who have taken this catastrophe and turned it into nothing more than soundbites to further their own self serving causes, which could not be more reprehensible.

Then there are those who aren't content with just their own particular brand of misery without spreading it around. Instead of doing anything productive, they instead choose to criticize the efforts of other people who use their scope of influence not to mock/blame/polarize... but to motivate others to help.

I ran into one such troll today.

Someone who has considerable influence decided to post a link for a charity that she supports (as do I), to encourage others to give so that we can help in any small way those folks in Haiti who have lost everything.

Most people responded well, but this one voice of dissent came to join the discussion and took issue with the fact so many people were sending aid overseas to another country. He pointed out that there were plenty of folks here in this country that could use our help - which is a point I will not argue.

My only question was ... why does it have to be one or the other?

As I said in the thread, human charity is a remarkably renewable resource. You can give to causes that are overseas and to those causes that are either local or domestic.

I know, because I do it.

I can support things like charity: water as well as St. Jude's, there is no charity quota that I need to fill that suggests okay I've given my share to charity... I'm done.

As long as there is need, we'll never be done.

Even charities who are committed to a specific cause have opened up their hearts to the tragedy in Haiti. That doesn't mean they'll stop fighting for their specific causes, it just means that need is so great the response must be even greater.

I can give money to the Red Cross to give help after the devastation of 9/11 just the same as I can give money to help after a tsunami strikes Indonesia. To suggest otherwise of a complete stranger is not only insulting, it's completely ignorant.

This person's argument is a fallacy. It supposes quite erroneously that because Person A chooses to give overseas that they forsake any domestic charity, as if those two go hand in hand - and they generally don't.

It also supposes that because Person B opts not to give to charity that isn't domestic, that they are charitable in the first place.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, an argument could be made that if you don't have the depth of compassion to look at what's happening in Haiti and feel compelled to share some of your good fortune with some of the poorest and hardest hit people in the world, then how can we be sure you won't pass a homeless person - compartmentalizing your own pity with how much that person might deserve his or her plight?

Which brings us back to that Biblical scripture:

13And so faith, hope, love abide [faith--conviction and belief respecting man's relation to God and divine things; hope--joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation; love--true affection for God and man, growing out of God's love for and in us], these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Why is love so important? Why is loving our brother as we love ourselves the cornerstone to the Christian faith, and indeed one of the two greatest commandments?

I believe Mother Teresa had it right. "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other."

If we did remember that we - as a human race - have something at stake by the well being of the other, that the struggles of our poorest are the struggles for us all... then we would never - EVER - belittle the attempts of anyone to coordinate charity for anyone struck by such overwhelming catastrophe. A catastrophe, one should mention, that should make anyone not affected that much more aware there but for the grace of God go all of us.

If we had that type of empathy, we would not turn on one another with this nasty sense of unearned moral superiority that makes a mockery out of the compassion of one human being toward another because we know that only through that compassion can we heal the wounds and ease the suffering.

We would remember what we do for the least of these, we do for Jesus himself.

Jesus did not make conditional his charity or his mercy or his compassion.

If we truly believe in charity, then, neither should we.

Should we spend our time and energy to help out those within our borders? Absolutely. And there are plenty of charities you can go to who would appreciate your time or your money, even in your own town. It doesn't (and shouldn't) take a tragedy to do it either.

Need is there every day - all over the world - as well as the ability to meet that need. There's something each one of us can do, no matter how limited our resources. There is always something you can give... even if it's just your understanding.

When my first husband Dan and I hit the lowest economic crisis of our lives together and were homeless in Los Angeles, he had such a heart for those who suffered similar fates he'd give his last thin dime to someone if they asked - even if he didn't know where his next dollar would come from.

He taught me very young the desire to give is either there... or it's not.

And it's not exhaustible. We live in a reciprocal universe. What you send out in this world is what you get back. Despite - or I'd even argue because of - his charity, Dan and I were able to rise out of those circumstances and never sink that low again.

And we never - EVER - forgot. So the needs of those less fortunate than we were became our concern.

So if you turn your back on another person because of where they happen to live, you demonstrate you are also the type of person who puts conditions on charity - which is no charity at all.

Instead of mocking the people who are motivated to make a difference, to lend a hand no matter how big or small, go find that local charity you supposedly find so much more important and learn the true meaning of the word by doing instead of criticizing.

Maybe then you'll be starting your own thread of mercy and charity rather than dump all over the efforts of another.

For those who do want to help, here are some links of organizations that help both at home AND where needed:

The Red Cross

The Salvation Army

Save the Children

AmeriCares

Operation USA

Feel free to add other charities in the comment section. Remember we're in this together. And there is no action too small. And it doesn't take a catastrophe to meet any need.

Don't wait for a tragedy to reach out and make a difference.