...as being TOO Progressive.
Does this even count as progressive, or just plain apeshit?

Pedophiles to launch political party (yahoo.com)

Discuss.

Let's think about this: if Jesus wanted to give you the ability to perform any feat, what would you choose?



Pat Robertson went for the blatantly false ludicrous (oh hell, let's just call it what it is) twatted claim that he can legpress a short ton (i.e., 2,000 pounds).

Me? I would have asked for the ability to fly, or walk on water. I guess, though, that Jesus tends to reciprocate according to what he gets. And what he gets from Pat Robertson (as do the rest of us) is a short ton of bullshit.

Robertson's 2,000-pound lift raises eyebrows (msnbc.com)
Pat Robertson's Official Site (patrobertson.com)
The Big Scary List of Pat Robertson quotations (positiveatheism.org)

"[Some] people living on the streets have serious problems. These problems include substance abuse, mental illness and serious violent criminality. All of those issues need to be addressed. Letting people lie there so that their problems get worse is not the answer. It’s not compassionate, and it’s not humane. We need to reach out to these people and help them address their problems. That’s what a compassionate society does."
--Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Source: State of City Address, New York City Jan 13, 2000


Seen last night in Madison Square Park, Midtown, 11:30 pm (don't ask why I was lurking around the Park at that time):
Two city workers--one obviously keeping a lookout, the other with his back turned, the visible glow of a lighter flame on his face, and the unmistakable scent of a certain freebase substance. Nearby, a homeless man on a bench turns and looks at them, shaking his head in disdain and mumbling something to the effect of, "Damn crackies."

I and a male companion took in The Da Vinci Code film last week.
Although I won't comment in depth on the film/book (which were both slightly more than mediocre, at best, but nonethless entertaining--the book tenfold more so than the film), I was tickled by the controversial comments by Sir Ian McKellen (who plays Sir Leigh Teabing) surrounding the controversy. Read a couple of his quotes, then imaging the furor of Fundamentalists, who already hate the film, towards the comments of a gay actor who is also a probable agnostic or atheist. It's quite enough to be entertained.

In an interview on the Today show (See the video below):
MATT LAUER: There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?

SIR IAN MCKELLEN: Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it.



In an interview at the 59th Cannes Film Festival:
MCKELLEN: When I read the book I believed it entirely. When I put the book down I thought what a load of potential codswallop. But I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I know that the Catholic Church has problems with gay people. I thought that would be absolute proof Jesus was not gay.

Brilliant.

Or possibly in a Blue State, if mental patients are allowed to drive cars:


(from the archives of Danger Snatch's driving photos.)

This is sending me a few messages:
1) I couldn't be too sure, but I got a feeling this person was telling me that Jesus is, in fact, real and happens to love me (which I can't help but interpret as poorly misguided infatuation, because Jesus and I haven't even been on a first date--he only ever sends me messages through his friends, which is so sixth grade);
2) Am I wrong in interpreting a gay pride agenda here as well, or is the rainbow lettering just used to emphasize the "colorfulness" (i.e., insanity) of the message? I have nothing against gay Christians, but I'm pretty sure that (if the fundamentalists are right, and they are so DON'T even think about questioning their views on the Bible which are RIGHT and EXACT because they wrote it heavily edited it have it on good authority), Jesus is not really into the non-hetero thing.

One of the greatest moments of stress relief might possibly be the advent of a sexual reawakening (that is, assuming one hs previously been active in riding the train to Shagland). When one realizes it's time to get back on the pine pony, gone are the cement shoes that unknowlingly sent one down to the bottom of the river Deprivation.

Sometimes one slips into one of those ruts where sexual desire seems like it has no relevance amongst the millions of things one must accomplish, the constant worry one faces at things in one's life that need to be tended to, the nagging memory in the back of one's mind of a Polish nun who smacked one's hand with a ruler because one asked about the "dirty deed."

But when the dust settles, and one finally has time to listen to that slight restless beast that dances at the bottom of the stomach's pit, one realizes that all the asking for is to be, well, fucked.

And there's nothing better than realizing that all one really needed was a good shag--and I'm not talking one of those cheap, desperate sessions where one ends up feeling like one just drank a fifth of vodka only to find it was 90% water--a shag in which all the proper precautions were taken so as to relieve the most preventable issues, where one is allowed to relax and slip into the sensation that can only be properly described by a biting of the lower lip and an involuntary guttural release of air from the vibrating larynx.

Now, the choice to adhere from sex could probably be fulfilling in itself; however, when one has opted for a safe-as-can-be, healthy sex drive and doesn't realize that sex is what was missing from the equation, the realization and conssequential remedy is nothing less than sublime.

Immigration and naturalization laws are a hot button issue in this country right now, and a week ago I was proud to say that I didn't care much about this problem and wanted to leave it to the avids to sort out. However, after hearing an earnest perspective on the matter from a dear friend (who happens to be a Latino permanent resident), I feel compelled to choose sides as both a sympathizer and as an American citizen.

When I say "choose sides," I don't mean in the readical sense--I'm not saying that the floodgates should be opened and that immigrants should be allowed to inundate our economy. Nor am I saying that we should keep a terribly tight rein on our borders, send six thousand National Guard to surveil or to start deporting people left and right. But I feel that I have to take at least a conditional stand so that I don't remain apathetic to issues that will become a major part of my life.



Firstly, I say that as US citizens, it's easy for us to forget that our lineage heralds from immigrants who came (or were brought) to this country and were eventually extended the semblance of opportunity in a land where "the streets are paved with gold." Everyone was searching for something in a country that became a land of opportunity. Hell, we are the land of opportunity because anyone theoretically could have come to America and become a new person, turn a new leaf (as much as Social Darwinism and one's own personal drive would allow).

At the same time, I know a lot of us who are "native Americans" can be quite selfish about out heritage--an American life is what we know, despite our variance in ancestry, and some feel threatened by the fact that we're allowing foreign people to come in and purportedly disrespect the slow but steady right to American nationality we've built. This is because, despite being Americans, we're still tessellated--people like to say this country is a melting pot, which implies an amalgamation of many cultures. But we're more of a tiled mosaic--each ostensibly adds to the bigger picture of American culture, but there is still a crack, a linear separation that distinguishes each tile from another.

But America is still America, which means everyone who lives here and who comes here have to accept two portions of each side: we are America because we are diverse, whether we like that or not. We are unique in that we have so many cultural mosaic tiles, but everyone is allowed to affix "-American" to their ancestry and proudly do so.

My main issue is with people who take this for granted. Citizenship to any country is a privilege, not a right. Naturalized citizens who were not born in any given country worked damn hard to gain status in their country, and as a result their children/grandchildren get to enjoy the privileges of said citizenship. So I applaud people who come to this country for a better life and realize that citizenship is not to be taken lightly, nor are its perks.

But not everyone feels they have this luxury, and not everyone regards the fact that our forefathers worked extremely hard to be a part of this country so that we could sit pretty with all the American amenities. I feel for people who need to take refuge from poverty in their own countries; at the same time, I don't feel it fair when people only want to take advantage of American rights without wanting to put the same effort into becoming citizens.

At the same time, though, I think it's terribly unpatriotic (and oh, how I hate how that word has been sullied in the past few years, but I will use it anyway) of Americans who complain about how illegal immigrants are "taking jobs from Americans." This is not true, because there are actually underhanded, cheap-ass companies who provide these positions fully knowing that Americans won't take them. They're exploiting immigrants who want to make an honest effort to settle in this country as well as abetting those who simply want to leech off our economy without repercussion. I say it's up to us to not allow this to happen: hold these businesses accountable for human rights violations for the sake of turning out extra profit.

And I don't see a big problem with people who are not quite willing to relinquish their natural citizenship to another country to be allowed to live and work on a guest basis as long as they are provided with legitimate jobs and not allowed to take advantage of the privilege (think of a houseguest who says they'll stay for a week but ends up living on your couch for a month, when you promised another friend they could stay during that time).

I also don't see a problem with allowing bilingual signs in an area that is densely populated by ethnic groups who speak a certain language, as long as this population is not taking advantage of their stay in this country. If I spoke English and grew up in a Cantonese household in Chinatown, I'd think it great to have my culture reflected in my neightborhood. But those who want to stay and work in this country also need to give of themselves by learning conversational English at the least. For instance, if I went over to France, no one would give me the time of day if I attempted to speak in English all the time and expected to be catered to in English. On the other side, I think those of us Americans who speak English well need to be more patient with those who may not be quite as fluent yet, but are trying to communicate with us. I'd feel discouraged if people constantly said to me, "Go learn to speak English"--why would I want to assimilate to such an unforgiving culture? (This is one reason why I am staying away from France; despite one's best efforts, the French are a prideful people and don't take kindly to anyone butchering their native tongue).

As an American citizen, I have my own rights I want to protect. When people become defensive, it's hard for them to sound compassionate and sensitive. But I really do feel that America needs growth everyday. We need to maintain, despite our soiled image, the promise that anyone can come here, work hard, and be accepted as an American.

blow-back
n.

1. Politics: the possibility that American-made weapons will be turned against American troops in time of warfare.

2. Religion: the staunch discouragement against contraceptives leads to the uncalculated boom in increasingly gullible generations of parishioners.

3. Sex: Immediatly after oral sex, trapping one's receiving partner in a heavy makeout session so as to transfer the appropriate body fluids. Often used as a retaliatory method for general unappreciativeness/constant lack of reciprocity, as most people seem to have a fear of their own body fluids (but, oddly enough, not those of strangers).

I've noticed every morning, when I check any given news source, that I go straight for the big news headlines. I'm preoccupied with the seemingly pointless game of nuclear chess between the Big Five and Iran; I sometimes browse the perpetual pictorials of Katrina's Aftermath; I even read up on crazy Scientologist celebrities.

Today, this headline is off to the side:
"Bombs Rock Baghdad, Karbala; 17 Killed" (msnbc.com)

I paid no attention to it whatsoever, until I realized that I paid attention to it whatsoever.

How ironic that our political liberation of a Middle Eastern country leads to incessant bombings, murders, and killings that our military force is powerless to stop. And how ironic that many others like myself, who saw no point in initiating this embarassing skirmish, pay no attention to the almost daily headlines that chronicle the deaths of Iraqis, Americans, and Europeans alike. We've become desensitized to something that, had it happened five miles away from where we lived, or even in this country, we would otherwise be up in political arms about.

Is this a way of making us oblivious to our misgivings about the invasion of Iraq? They probably figure, "Half the people agree with our decision. We'll barrage the other half's news circuits with constant reports of bombings so that it becomes third-class news--no one will pay attention to the hundreds of people killed in Iraq each year when another candidate for the Axis of Evil Middle Eastern country won't disarm its theoretical nukes or when Tom Cruise's box office smash breaks records." If this is their line of thinking, then the current administration (and the media who answers to its beck and call) is winning in its efforts to place everyone in some state of unquestioning placation.

The most tragic thing of all this is that these headlines truly do belong intermingled with the more banal fare, because we live in a world where Iraqi bombings have become as commonplace as the daily weather report. And I will continue to pass over them while drinking my Diet Coke.

hell
n.

1. Religion: A place that the clergy threatens the laity with for not contributing to the collection, knowing full well that the verity of its existence would grant them instant admission.

2. Sex: A sexual partner's uncontrollable sobs drowning out your own vocalization of passion; faking an orgasm and later realizing the doom of perpetually mediocre sex without climax

3. Politics: see 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

George H.W.
OCCUPATION: 41st President of the United States, Reanimated Corpse
CLAIM TO FAME: Married to the only living survivor of the American Revolution. Invaded Panama. Invaded Iraq but withdrew. Vomited on Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: Banned broccoli from being served on Air Force One and in the White House during State dinners. Now that's clout.






George W.
OCCUPATION: Current President of the United States,
CLAIM TO FAME: "Former" alcoholic. Governor of That State With The People With Big Hair and Cowboy Boots (NOTE: I've been to Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston. This is a wholly validated generalization). Married a cybernetic being. Shat on The Geneva Convention. Let's not forget the little Iraq snafu and spilling the beans about classified information.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: The word "strategery."








John Ellis "Jeb"
OCCUPATION: Governor of Florida. Fat, Ugly Son Who Didn't Get as Much Love From Barbara as George Did So Expresses His Frustration By Being a Total Asshole
CLAIM TO FAME: Made Florida education system worse. Shamed the family by becoming a dirty, dirty Catholic. Exercised his belief in pro-life by trying to keep Terri Schiavo on a feeding tube.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: Sat on his haunches while four hurricanes wrecked parts of Florida and let FEMA take care of incompetence.




Neil
OCCUPATION: Texas businessman. Ironically nicknamed "Mr. Perfect" by his siblings.
CLAIM TO FAME: Ran Silverado Savings & Loan into the ground. Gets paid a $60,000 yearly consulting fee by Crest Investments for answering phone calls. Admittedly solicited sex from no less than four Thai and Hong Kong hookers (although he claimed that it was not for a fee). Allegedly fathered a child with one of his mother's correspondence aides, but evaded a paternity test.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: E-mailed his wife of twenty-two years to tell her he no longer loved her and wanted a divorce. And they say chivalry is dead.




Marvin
OCCUPATION: Portfolio manager and co-founder of Winston Capital Management.
CLAIM TO FAME: As director of Securacom/Stratesec, coincidentally ended a security contract for the World Trade Center on September 10, 2001. Mysteriously found a long-time babysitter crushed to death by her own car in the driveway in front of his family home.
MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT: Not sure yet, but it probably involves some freak murder/accident.






And let's not forget the lovely offspring of these wonderful men:

Jenna and Barbara, the first twins, engaging in one of their allegedly regular displays of intoxicated shenanigans:



Here's a mugshot of Noelle (daughter of Jeb) after being booked in Florida for trying to score Xanax:



And perhaps my worst nightmare: Lauren (daughter of Neil), looking like nothing other than a Rollins-esque snob destined for a life of quaalude-filled hausfraudom.