And knowing is half the battle!

"Living heroes have a tendency to become idealistic after a revolution. They have no concept of the mundane practicalities of government. Dead heroes, on the other hand, are much more malleable."
--Major Sebastian Bludd

This is the place where pop culture and politics collide in unexpected ways.

First, just a little bit of background: G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero was a Hasbro toy line from the 1980s, based on an earlier line of larger figures Hasbro produced in the 60s and 70s. The line was planned to be in the same scale as Star Wars figures (roughly 3.75" tall), as these sold a lot better than the 12" figures that had been popular. (Due, I imagine, in no small part to the smaller figures costing less and allowing people to buy more.)

After deciding to produce this new line (around 1981), Hasbro contacted Marvel Comics to produce the backstory for the characters and a tie-in monthly comic book. An editor at Marvel, Larry Hama, perhaps the most underrated writer in the entire history of comic books, dusted off a proposal he'd created a couple of years prior about a team of commandos led by Nick Fury, which had never been approved by Marvel. He changed around some names and costumes, and the initial version of the Joe team was born. Unable to find a writer willing to write a book based on a toy, Hama wrote the series himself, and his 13-year run on the title is legendary.

For, unlike the entertaining but ultimately childish cartoon, the G.I. Joe comic book was, for the most part, semi-realistic. The characters acted like real soldiers and terrorists, even the most vile villains had reasons for being what they were, and, perhaps most shocking to those who never read it and only saw the cartoon, they even died in the line of duty. The characters' names were usually names borrowed from servicemen with whom Hama had served in Vietnam (or, in at least one case, an artist on the comic) or puns and jokes (the first names of the original three Dreadnoks were Tom, Dick, and Harry; their last names, Winken, Blinken, and Nod). And, not surprisingly, Hasbro, who developed the looks of characters before they had names and personalities assigned to them, often based likenesses on real people. (The most famous instance of this, not counting guys like Sergeant Slaughter who were supposed to actually be celebrities, was Tunnel Rat, who bore an uncanny resemblance to Mr. Hama himself.)

So, this may be the longest "little bit of background" in human history. Anyway, I was recently discussing the original toyline with a friend, specifically exactly when it "jumped the shark." There'd always been some goofiness, particularly in the costumes of the various Cobra elite. (Dr. Mindbender has got to be one of the weirdest-looking characters ever designed, regardless of how cool his concept was: a mild-mannered orthodontist who tinkered with brainwave manipulation to alleviate pain, tested his prototype on himself, and was transformed into the most maniacal mad scientist the world had ever seen.) One name came up quickly: Cesspool. Cesspool was introduced long after we'd both stopped buying the figures, but, because of the way the Hasbro/Marvel agreement worked, he had to appear in the comic, which we were both still reading at the time (1991). Cesspool was the leader of a group of Cobras called the Eco-Warriors, who wanted to pollute the entire Earth. I'm not sure why a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world would actually want to destroy the world first, but you can tell that Captain Planet was not considered at the time to be nearly as lame as he really is.

So I looked up Cesspool's filecard. Almost immediately, I was struck by a more than passing resemblance to a real live person (aside from his ridiculous scars). And the first sentence sounded a lot like it could be referring to an actual corporation for which said real person once served as CEO: "CESSPOOL was the Chief Executive Officer of a huge multi-national corporation with vast holdings in oil refineries, chemical plants and mills."

Uncanny, isn't it?

Of course, there's an obvious problem with this comparison: Cheney didn't become the CEO of Halliburton until 1995; the Cesspool figure was released in 1991 and therefore was probably designed in 1990. However, I'm not familiar with Cheney's voting record in the Senate, or with environmental decisions he might have made or influenced during the Nixon administration, and I've spent too much time thinking about this already to look them up to see if there might be something in his history that could've indicated to some Hasbro designer the monster he would become.

In any case, I have a word of advice for Destro: If Cesspool invites you to go hunting, tell him you and the Baroness have plans for a romantic getaway in Borovia.

Who gonna bail me out?

I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
--The Who

Almost two weeks. Not bad for a goal of daily, eh? I've had a nasty cold that's kept me from doing much, but didn't realize it'd been this long.

I don't claim to understand the business world. Everything about it seems to fly directly in the face of common sense. For instance, if a retailer's profits don't match their projections or are down from the previous year, this means the company is in dire straits; the stocks plummet and the company might go under in some cases. Stupid me, using only my common sense, thinks, "But there are still profits, and not losses, right? In other words, you made money, just not as much as expected. So how is this not a good thing, even if it's not quite as good as you'd hoped?"

We are on what is likely to be the start of a long and painful recession, if not a full-on depression. And we were brought here, as eighty years ago, by unbridled corporate greed. As a society, we forgot that the Republican economic philosophy, taken to the extreme, falls in on itself. It's a philosophy founded on optimism and faith in human nature: "If you give money to the rich, they create jobs. Stay out of business, because business will do the right thing."

Bulls***.

Corporations are not an evil in and of themselves, but they rarely, left unchecked, become bastions of human goodness. "Human goodness" is a myth in itself. We're all nasty little buggers who try as much as we can to put our best face forward and not let everyone else see how despicable we are. Truth is, the Earth would be far better off if that asteroid had missed 65 million years ago. Maybe a more rational intelligent species would've evolved. Or maybe the world would enjoy the lack of a supposedly developed ruler.

(If you doubt the inherent badness of human nature, go into a Wal-Mart on a weekend. It's savage. And all to save maybe four cents on a damn box of crackers! That's one reason my wife and I refer to the place as "Hell" and refuse to go there unless absolutely necessary.)

The news is frightening every day. Major companies are going under. Homes are worth half of what people owe on them, because the original intent of the federal bailout plan, to buy up bad mortgages, has been abandoned in favor of simply handing money to the banks. But not the auto industry. Screw them and the millions of people who will lose their livelihoods if they go under.

Again, my silly little "common sense" is wondering why we're not buying stocks in the businesses that are in trouble, to infuse them with short-term capital. Then, when the companies are strong again, the government could sell its interests in the companies, and likely at a profit. Why can't we do that? Oh yeah. Socialism. Can't allow that, even if 90% or more of people who are deathly afraid of it have no idea what it means, and doesn't even really apply here.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is slashing rates. If they could go negative, I wonder if they would. But two major banks (American Express and CitiBank) are raising rates to their cardholders, to offset rising costs. How does that work? You're in trouble, so you take taxpayer money, then turn around and screw your customers? Shouldn't that silly common sense again point out that there's a good chance many of these customers will get pissed at the poor customer service and leave, or will have trouble paying at the new rates?

Oh, but they're individual people. They don't matter. Only the big companies matter. Trickle-down, and all. It works. It's not been disproven.

Only it has. If trickle-down Reaganomics worked, the money the banks are getting--our money--would be used for purposes that benefit us, instead of financing executive getaway after executive getaway.

At the head of it all, we have Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury. He once ran Goldman-Sachs, one of the most culpable of the culprits in our current financial crisis, then was appointed to the Bush regime. Once there, he created and continued policies to line the pockets of his former company and other Wall Street titans. Then, when it hit the fan, he lied about the nature of the crisis and his intentions in order to pass legislation through Congress to get his way with little oversight, and is handing out money like candy to banks that are not using it for any purpose that benefits anyone other than their bigwigs and shareholders.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paulson... seems to be a recurring trend here, doesn't there? You come in, lie to Congress, weasel your way out of oversight, then take a massive piss on the country. Hell, even Bush is an oilman who seems to do everything with his eye on oil company profits.

I honestly wonder if Bush is as stupid as he seems, or is a force of destruction determined to destroy America in eight years. I no longer think of him as a Republican. A Republican is someone who has a different idea about how to solve problems (which may or may not involve brainwashing to think anyone who disagrees is evil and trying to take away his guns). Bush and his cronies go beyond that. Even in the face of real danger to the country, their only concern is their wallets--theirs and no one else's.

Using the exact same tactics they used to get us into an unjustified war in Iraq, the Bush regime has now stolen almost a trillion dollars from the (mostly) poor to give to the super-rich. (And all this while arguing that Obama's proposed return to a progressive tax is "wealth redistribution" and somehow not laughing at people who buy into this argument.) Everyone thought the bailout deal was a bitter pill we had to swallow. Well, it's not a pill, but we're being forced to swallow something, all right. It's going to be long and hard, and I can guarantee that guys like Paulson will have a really big smile on their face when they're finished, while we're stuck with the mess.

And, now, for the bad news

"Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
--Matthew 25:40 (KJV)

On Tuesday, we elected our first non-white President. Racism is still alive and well in the US, but, at last, we as a nation have overcome it at least to the extent that a candidate can run based on vision and qualifications without skin color being a hindrance. And, though I'm not especially fond of either of them, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin proved that gender may no longer be an issue with voters anymore, either. (Neither won, true, but Hillary came remarkably close, and the importance of Palin's being a female VP nominee on the ticket not usually associated with gender equality should not be understated. I just hope they'll both crawl back into whatever holes they came out of and allow less divisive female candidates to step forward in the near future.)

Happily, Elizabeth Dole's campaign for re-election was shot down after her inexcusable attacks on Kay Hagan's religion. (Unfortunately, neo-McCarthyist Michele Bachmann was re-elected, but you can't win 'em all. I imagine her calls to investigate anti-American sentiment in Congress will continue to fall on deaf ears.)

In Colorado, a ballot measure was shot down that would have legally defined a fertilized egg as a human being. I'm no proponent of abortion (though it is far from an important issue when it comes to me deciding who gets my vote as it is nothing more than an inflammatory wedge issue that will never be resolved), but this idea seems extreme for even the most hardcore pro-life activists.

However, equal rights for all suffered two major blows this week. First, there is the obvious: passage of Proposition 8 in California, which stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry. I may be mistaken, but this is the first instance I'm aware of where a right has been granted to a minority group, then the validity of that right has gone to a vote before a populace still not comfortable with that minority. I'm not sure whether to be more disgusted with so many not seeing this as discrimination, pure and simple, or the amount of time and money donated by churches and Christian groups that could have (and should have) been spent on those who need help. Jesus never told us to get involved in politics; He maintained a very hands-off approach during His life. But He did tell us to help the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. I may be mistaken, and the hundreds or thousands of "Yes on 8" signs I've seen locally may be made of rice and were donated to soup kitchens, but I doubt it. This is why great leaders throughout history have cautioned against the power of organized religion, even the religions in which they themselves believed. The role of the church is to do God's work, not to legislate.

Why am I not as concerned about the votes on the same issue in Florida and Arizona? The right had never been granted there. It's still wrong, but those situations pale in comparison to California's current situation. California judges determined the state constitution did not specify a reason to not allow same-sex marriage, and granted the right to an institution called "marriage" to same-sex couples. Then it was taken away by a vote, because God forbid that judges, who are appointed to interpret the law and rule on complex legal issues because they know the law better than the vast majority of voters, actually do their job. Then they're "activist judges" who "rule from the bench." Unless, of course, you agree with them. Funny how that works, isn't it?

It may sound like hyperbole, but the situation reminds me most of the plight of Jews leading up to World War II. I'm not referring to the Holocaust, which is the darkest moment in human history, but the string of injustices perpetrated as the Nazis took power. Rights that had previously existed were slowly eroded away. Restrictions on what jobs a Jewish man could hold, or what hours he could be outside, or requirements that he wear a yellow Star of David--these seemingly minor acts of discrimination took place over time. And the rest of the population, for the most part, kept quiet. Anti-semitic sentiment was strong, so why would someone defend a group that was hated by most people (including, likely, themselves)?

But that's the thing: it's easy to defend your own rights, or rights you agree with. It's more important to defend those you may not be comfortable with, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people. I seriously doubt that homosexuals in the US will be exterminated, but any erosion of rights is unacceptable.

The ballot measure in Arkansas which prevents adoption by unmarried couples is, simply put, stupid. Yes, it's discrimination. But it shows how incredibly dense and hypocritical people are who wish to strip away rights. The intent is clearly to keep same-sex couples (who can't be married under Arkansas law) from adopting. The proponents of the measure made no bones about this in their advertisements and arguments. Yet, to circumvent a 2006 ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court, it is carefully worded to bar all adoptions by unwed couples. All of this, ostensibly, is to protect children. And I can't help but see how stupid the logic is. "Let's protect kids by keeping them away from potentially loving parents, and keep them in state custody, where they're more likely to be abused and molested, commit crimes, and have serious emotional problems." And, "Let's make it harder to adopt, so more unmarried teenage mothers will turn to abortion." I don't like using such a derogatory word, but I'll say it again in this case: stupid. Hopefully, the Arkansas Supreme Court will shoot down this law born in ignorance and intolerance within a couple of years. (I'm not sure how quickly the court system operates there.)

Maybe one day, we will be able to overcome all discrimination. Unfortunately, it seems like there is always a new target for hatred.

Toward a colorblind society

"It's a whole new world, baby! It's a whole new world!"
--Ben Burns (Richard Roundtree)

The first record of an African slave being sold in what would become the United States occurred in 1619. Though the Declaration of Independence of the United States stated that "all men are created equal" in 1776, the Founding Fathers deadlocked on the issue of slavery and, in the Constitution in 1787, postponed it for 20 years, for the next generation to deal with. Slavery was finally abolished in the US in 1865 (68 years longer than intended) with the passage of the 13th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act and 24th Amendment of 1964 ensured full voting privileges to African-Americans.

And, on November 4, 2008, the United States of America for the first time elected an African-American to lead the nation as its President. Almost 2.5 centuries to be freed. One century to be equal under the law. And barely one generation to achieve the highest office in the land.

Even if you disagree with his politics, even if your head is so far up your butt that you still believe the BS smear tactics that he's a socialist Muslim terrorist who wants to take your guns, give away your money, and dismantle the state of Israel, take a moment and reflect on this. Be happy for the man and what he represents even if you disagree with him or even don't like him.

At the founding of our nation, Barack Obama would likely have been forced to work as a slave on a cotton plantation. A century ago, he would've been a marginal citizen on the outskirts of society. And now, he will lead our nation to what I hope will be better days.

We have not erased the sins of the past. This can never happen. But, as a nation, we have proven that we no longer simply pay lip service to the notion of equality, and even the capital of the Confederacy can vote for a man based on his qualifications rather than his skin color. We still have a long way to go toward equality for all (as the hotly-contested and likely lost battle for marriage rights in California proves), but this is a milestone. Dr. King's dream may never be fully realized in an imperfect world such as we live in, but the distance covered in just 45 years is a testament to the progress we can make when we refuse to accept inequality.

This is your moment, Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States of America. And, more, it belongs to everyone who believes the world can be a more egalitarian place.

Vote

"Those who stay away from the election think that one vote will do no good: 'Tis but one step more to think one vote will do no harm."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

If you're 18 and a registered voter, go and vote. Regardless of what you think about any candidate or issue, do it. If you're not registered, take care of this now rather than later, so you can vote next time.

And, even though it may seem like a pain in the butt, get as much information as you can on those obscure local issues and candidates. Those are the ones that will affect you the most.

Just don't do what I found out last week my father does: vote for candidates in races about which you're totally ignorant based entirely on the sound of a person's name. If you really don't know and can't find out anything about the candidates for an office no matter how hard you try, skip that section of the ballot. It might sound hypocritical of me to say that, but an uninformed vote can be more dangerous than no vote at all. If you don't believe me, look at the strange case of Judge Elizabeth Halverson in Las Vegas.

Changing channels

"I can see by your eyes friend you're just about gone
Fifty-seven channels and nothin' on"
--Bruce Springsteen

It's a truism that, the more channels become available, the fewer shows are actually worth watching. I consider myself someone who watches too much TV, though I probably watch a good deal less than most. And there's this weird tendency for shows I like to get canned prematurely and be replaced by trash like Are You Less Stupider Than the Biggest Loser Making a Deal? So what am I watching (more or less) currently?

Pushing Daisies: This is, far and away, the best show on TV. Sure, if Arrested Development and Deadwood were still around, it might be second or third, but there's nothing that even comes close to the strange tale of Ned the Piemaker, who can bring back the dead with a touch (and the caveat that he cannot touch them again, or they die) and his true love, Charlotte Charles, who he can never touch since he previously brought her back from the great beyond. It's gorgeously produced, flawlessly acted, intelligently written, and never predictable. And I'm not saying this because, somehow, it's somehow losing in the ratings to the waste of an hour that stole the name of the classic show Knight Rider.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report: It's a sad statement about mainstream news programs when a self-proclaimed "fake journalist" and an over-the-top pretend pundit are the ones asking the important question. But no matter. Even if the news wasn't full of moronic "human interest" (to whom?) stories aimed at 6-year-olds and features that broke on Yahoo! News a week earlier, it would be worth staying up to see these two programs, since they're two of the most consistently funny shows in history, with an excellent balance of the subtle and the absurd.

Good Eats: Alton Brown is a god. He's like Mister Wizard for adults, teaching the basic hows and whys of cooking (with emphasis on the science), while making silly jokes and pop culture references throughout. If you've never seen this, you have been deprived.

South Park: Matt and Trey can still be just as funny as they were ten years ago. Funnier, even. South Park is an equal-opportunity offender that satirizes anything and anybody. Trouble is, it's become quite hit and miss over the past few years. When it's on, it's really on, but when it's off (as in the recent 2-parter "Pan-Demic"), it's impossible to stay awake to see the whole show.

Curb Your Enthusiasm: I thought Larry David's semi-autobiographical show was canceled, especially after last season's finale. But it apparently will be back next year. I just hope the Blacks will be returning; Leon may be the funniest character introduced on the show.

Hell's Kitchen and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares: It's obvious they bleep out a lot of non-offensive words to make these seem edgier, and they're heavily padded hour-long shows with a half-hour's worth of content, but they're still pretty entertaining. The British version of Kitchen Nightmares is far superior, but I think they only made three or four episodes and BBC America airs them constantly.

Jeopardy!: Even disregarding how the show is a little more dumbed-down every year, it's still the only quiz show that actually challenges its contestants. I could do without the Clue Crew, though.

Family Guy and American Dad: I never thought I'd say this, but American Dad is actually much funnier than Family Guy now. A constant string of pop culture references can get old. I've got zero hopes for all of them after The Cleveland Show debuts, since Seth McFarlane is already stretching himself thin, and proved with that godawful Rob Corrdry show (The Winner? I don't even remember.) that he can't do three shows, or they all suffer.

Simpsons and King of the Hill: Both of these are on their last legs (KOTH is actually finally getting the axe), and hit their peaks years ago, but they're still occasionally funny.

Cities of the Underworld: It's amazing to know what's underground in many of the cities and regions of the world. My only complaint is that it sometimes tries to cover too much in an hour.

Jurassic Fight Club: A smart, mostly accurate, science show about dinosaurs that always culminates in the goriest fights you can see on basic cable. It sometimes fudges things like the sizes of the animals, but it's the best dinosaur show since the original Walking with Dinosaurs.

Monsterquest: This one can be more hit and miss than even South Park. Usually, it's a fun watch, even if most of it is likely BS. Sometimes it really seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to ideas: my God, there are bears in Alaska? What will we ever do? We're going to have to totally rethink life on this planet now that we know there are bears in Alaska! Someone call up Sarah Palin and tell her to get her helicopter ready.

Mythbusters: Sure, the science isn't always the best, and they tend to come to conclusions that aren't necessarily supported by the outcome of the experiments. But who cares? They blow up stuff!

I don't follow any of these religiously, and there's other shows I see occasionally (I didn't list any news shows aside from the two on Comedy Central, nor did I list stuff like True Blood or Sesame Street that other members of my household follow but I would pass on). But that's the gyst. Since the seasons for these shows are so staggered throughout the year, I suppose it really isn't that much TV.

I'm not being especially deep today, but spending most of yesterday trying to figure out the local candidates' positions (a real headache when there's only one incredibly crappy local paper and one far-right leaning crappy regional paper) has kind of sapped me of any desire to be anything but superficial for the moment. Deal with it.

How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

"[L]et me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I wasn't going to bring this subject up again so soon after the last post. But the sometimes random tendencies of the thought process led me back to it. I was thinking of how unfortunate it is that there are so few Republican comedians who are funny, and it sort of brought me to a man I've not thought of in almost two decades.

Back in the 1980s, when I was a young boy with a mullet that Billy Ray Cyrus would envy, I regularly attended the youth group at my church. We did quite a lot of things together, from summer camp to concerts. And one concert was a sold-out performance at a rather respectably-sized venue by a Christian comedian named Mike Warnke. His material wasn't worth writing home about (the only joke I can remember now is one about the duty of ushers being "ushing"). I can't go so far as to say I think it was bad; it was just quite unmemorable. But he was pretty hot stuff among evangelical Christians at the time, many of whom, unfortunately, insulate themselves from the rest of the world just as badly as they do today. (I've not abandoned the core of what I believed then, but tried to dispense with many of the trappings, particularly traditions that have no basis in the teachings of Jesus. Secular rock music is not evil, for example, because something as transcendentally great as the guitar solo in "You Shook Me All Night Long" is proof positive that there is more to existence than what is readily apparent.)

Warnke's big draw was that he had been a former high priest in a satanic cult in the 1960s, and he was saved while serving an especially eventful tour in Vietnam. He told unimpressive jokes, but also warned about the evil ways into which he'd been drawn as a young adult. He was accepted as an expert in the field, and there was an unhealthy fear of satanic cults around that time (and not just among Christians, either), so he got quite a bit of work, and raised quite a bit of money for his outreach programs. His discussions were disturbing, to say the least. One detail that stands out was his description of being called in to consult for local law enforcement when they found a dead baby, who'd been ritually sacrificed and had his skull removed from his head, that was found in a garbage bag. I believe his exact phrase was, "You don't know how evil these people can be until you've looked into the face of a dead infant that is flattened because there's no skull to support it."

For almost a month, I had trouble sleeping. Every time I closed my eyes, I saw the image in my mind. I re-developed a fear of dark places that I'd grown out of years earlier. More, I lived in constant terror of the devil and his earthly servants, who constantly, I thought, watched for the slightest infraction against God's commands, waiting impatiently to tear us limb from limb and use our corpses in their depraved rituals.

I really wonder now if I blocked it completely out of my head. I'm not exaggerating when I say that, about a month or so afterwards, I simply didn't think of it at all, even as traumatic as it had been, until yesterday.

I'll admit, as an adult, and particularly as a parent, the idea of a mutilated baby corpse is still one hell of a disturbing mental image. But I've grown up. Yes, I still collect G.I.Joe figures and watch cartoons, but I'm mostly an adult. I no longer believe in the devil as an actual being, only as an abstract representation of our own dark sides, and I recognize the "hellfire and brimstone" sermon for what it is: a form of terrorism.

I can hear the response now: "What?!? How dare you use that word?" The simple fact is, Mirriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." And what is terror? It is fear. As in fear tactics. Coerce? Again, from Mirriam-Webster: "to achieve by force or threat." So, he was using fear, or terror, of such a supernatural evil to coerce people into believing. And, well, it worked. He might not have been blowing up people on a large scale (or period), but it's the same basic tactic on a much smaller, more personal, scale.

(I'm not saying this to diminish the destruction or loss of life committed by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, nor would I ever condone this sort of behavior. It's evil, pure and simple. But the terrorist modus operandi, using fear to influence others to acquiese to your wishes, is a technique in the toolbox of men like Mike Warnke and Dick Cheney, even if they don't resort to actual violence. Well, except when Cheney is supposedly hunting ducks.)

The first thing to cross my adult mind was skepticism. If there was really a large satanic cult stealing the skulls from infants in the 1980s, why was this the only time I'd heard of it? I follow the news, and have seen quite a few shocking stories of violence, but never anything like this before or since. And why, if he himself had been involved in human sacrifice, as he'd claimed, had he never turned himself or his conspirators in?

Thank God for the internet. Barely a few seconds of typing led me to many sources that informed me that this man had been soundly debunked in 1991 by a Christian magazine called Cornerstone. Turns out pretty much everything he said was total BS. Not only was he a fraud, having been a shy nerd in college and not a drug-addicted satanic murderer, but he'd co-opted other people's stories from Vietnam to make his own stint there sound more dramatic. He'd collected donations for outreach programs that didn't even exist (while drawing a salary in a tax bracket sure to require him to pay more taxes under Obama). He'd also been married four times, and physically abused his wives. In short, he lied and wasn't practicing what he preached. (Hmm.... This is making me think of that one Islamic fundamentalist who talks about the US being evil, but still wears a Rolex. Maybe the terrorism remark is more apropos than I originally thought.)

Instilling fear is never an appropriate course of action for civilized people, regardless of their religion. It doesn't matter what the desired outcome may be. A wise green man once said, in his final film appearance that was worth watching, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." We can learn a lot from Yoda (up through 1999, at least--after that, it's just silliness); as a commentator on the human condition, he never steers you wrong, even if he isn't a human and he doesn't really exist. Fear will lead to suffering every time, be it directly or indirectly, intentional or not. Can we ever trust the words of a man who claims to be working to save souls by scaring children? He may have succeeded in getting me to walk what he thought a straight line for a while, but is it worth traumatizing a 12-year-old kid? Has he ultimately done more harm than good, with his public humiliation destroying his credibility? How many now feel bullied into believing in God and reject what they once accepted as a result of this sort of preaching?

Fear is paralyzing. Anyone who's ever been afraid of the monster under the bed knows this. Fear on a spiritual level keeps one from growing. And spiritual growth is essential, or one is just an automaton of sorts, following commands without ever pondering them.

And, I suppose, it eventually comes back to politics, with the campaign of a once noble and respectable leader lately resorting to playing on fears of a terrorist boogieman who either will kill us all if we vote for the other guy, or who the other guy is secretly pallin' around with. By using fear as a weapon, he becomes what he is trying to scare us against. It's sad and disgusting, and yet pitiful, that McCain, a man I would've without hesitation voted for over Gore in 2000, has sunk to such a level.

Of course, everything I said about fear, well, it doesn't apply to Batman. Because he's wicked awesome.

Physician, heal thyself

"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."
--Bo Diddley

I've always been sickened by the tendencies of some Republicans to use faith as a weapon. (I'd say the same about Democrats if this were truly on both sides, but I can't think of any example of this behavior from a Democrat.) I'm not sure when it began, but, at some point, the Republican Party tried to make its brand synonymous with "Christian," implying that the Democrats, their opposition, were, by default, "atheist." They've driven this home to voters through use of wedge issues like abortion, which is an issue that will never, ever, ever, ever be truly resolved, but which doesn't fail to get out the vote from a certain group of Christians who are led to believe it's their moral duty to protect unborn babies... but somehow okay to never provide for their education, and to send these kids to die in unnecessary wars when they grow up.

This year, it's been especially bad, and not just in the most obvious spot of that guy with the same middle name as that other guy's last name, you know, the one we found hiding in a hole and executed. I learned about a little back-and-forth between the two candidates running for US Senate from North Carolina, of all places. I was born in North Carolina, and raised there and in Virginia, and am proud to be a Southerner. I still argue with ignorant "Yankees" that the cause of the Civil War wasn't as simple as history books make it seem (that Lincoln outlawed slavery and the bunch of jackholes who made up the South left the Union because they loved slavery so much). It doesn't mean I think slavery was anything short of one of the darkest deeds this nation ever perpetrated (it's a toss-up for worse when compared to our treatment of the folks who were here first), or that I condone racism at all. But oversimplifying it to demonize one side doesn't do any services to those who want to learn from the mistakes of the past.

I have digressed. Here are links to the two ads, the one from Elizabeth Dole and the response from Kay Hagan. (Go ahead and watch. I'll wait here.)

I'm not sure which sentiment is stronger in my mind: the desire to pimp-slap Elizabeth Dole or to call Hagan personally and say, "You go, girl!" It's one of the lowest attacks I've seen, answered by one of the classiest and yet most scathing counterattacks. If Democrats had stood up for their beliefs and acted like this twenty or thirty years ago when Republicans were busy convincing voters that they were atheists who wanted to force you to abort your babies, we might not be in quite the mess we're in now, politically speaking.

Face it: In over two centuries, we have never had a president who was anything but a Christian. We've had one Catholic president; the rest have been Protestant. There has only been one candidate who had a chance at either the presidency or the vice-presidency who wasn't Christian (Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish).

And, yet, the biggest scare tactic used in this presidential election is the lie that Barack Obama is a Muslim. How many times does a man have to specifically say he is Christian before people will believe him? Call me insane, but anyone who claims to be of any religion gets the benefit of the doubt in my book, until he does something to prove otherwise. If he were secretly a Muslim extremist, why doesn't anyone realize that he should be facing Mecca and praying during many of his public appearances? Does Jesus Christ have to come down from Heaven himself and endorse Obama for people to just take him at his word? There are things you can doubt about either candidate (and both have stretched the truth), but it scares me that there are still people who don't believe the man who seems likely to be our next president on something as basic and personal as his religion.

(And don't get me started on the mass of hypocrisy that is Sarah Palin. Maybe later, but I could go on about her for several pages, and don't feel like it now.)

On the other hand, it worries me just as much that there are still people who believe this is a Christian nation, that we have some grand role to play. No, we're a bunch of people living in a particular geographic area, violently and dishonestly stolen from the natives who were here first, upon which a country was founded by a wide variety of Christians, deists, and atheists, where we are supposed to enjoy and respect certain freedoms, one of those being the freedom to believe whatever you want. One's opinion of a politician should not rest entirely on what his or her religion is. I won't argue that one can't consider the underlying moral teachings of that religion, but most religions agree on the basics and, barring a sudden, unexpected return to the Thuggee worship of Kali, we're unlikely to encounter one that's too different in the moral teachings from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any of the other religions practiced in the US.

About two weeks ago, former Secretary of State Colin Powell restored eight years worth of lost respect in my eyes. It wasn't that he endorsed the guy I'm voting for. He could've said that Obama was incompetent and endorsed McCain, but I would think he was a great man (that I happen to disagree with) if he had still said what he said about the attacks on Obama:
[I]t is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?

It's nice to know there are still some people out there who recognize that people who disagree shouldn't hate one another. And that attacks on faith are not only wrong, but not acceptable Christian behavior.

About the title

"I just found out there's no such thing as the real world
Just a lie you've got to rise above" --John Mayer

"Crisis of faith" is a term that, so far as I can ascertain, has no hard-and-fast definition. Usually, it's used when one doubts their entire belief system--essentially, what the character of Satan was going for in the book of Job. I've heard some (admittedly, not too many) people argue, though, that any questioning of one's faith is a crisis of faith. If this is true, then many of us go through a constant crisis of faith. I'm of the mind that one's faith in anything or any concept must be constantly called into question, and withstand the self-scrutiny. Faith of any sort is a belief in something that cannot be empirically proved or disproved. If it cannot stand up to doubt, then it is weak faith.

Faith is also a crossover country artist who had some decent Shania Twain-esque hits, but is doomed to eternally burn in hell for what she did to "Piece of My Heart." (Okay, I joke, but I think there's a good chance Janis Joplin will kick her ass when she gets to the Pearly Gates.)

I don't claim to have infinite faith by any means. (I'm not even sure whether that'd be a good thing.) The title refers to a DC Comics 12-issue maxi-series from 1985 called Crisis on Infinite Earths. The premise was anything but simple. For about fifty years, characters like Superman and Batman had been running around in the DC Universe, and DC Comics had acquired other companies that owned other heroes (like Blue Beetle and Captain Marvel) who were in separate worlds. In the 1950s and 1960s, they had "created" a second world, where more modern versions of the characters existed. They could still hop over to "Earth I," where the "Golden Age" (1940s) versions of themselves lived. And there were other universes, such as a reverse world where good was evil, the universes where the non-DC heroes lived, and our own world. By the 1980s, it was confusing, especially when Batman had inexplicably gone from the Adam West TV version of himself to the more realistic, driven version almost overnight, or where Superman had learned that dozens of other survivors from Krypton lived, including Supergirl, Krypto the Superdog, Beppo the Supermonkey, and who knows what else.

To clean house, DC staged a huge crossover, where a superdupervillain was destroying all the worlds in existence, and, to save the remaining worlds (read: the ones we'd actually seen in comics previously), all these disparate realities had to be combined into one world with a new timeline and continuity. This meant some details that had become issues could be fixed: the second Robin could now be a reformed street punk instead of having the same circus origins as the first, and Superman could be "powered down" so that he no longer flew through the sun every Saturday to clean his cape. A lot of characters died. In most cases, this meant they had never existed in the new world. Supergirl was among those who fell, and George Perez's cover for issue #7 (Superman screaming while holding the body of his dead cousin) is probably the masterpiece by this giant in the field.

I think that's right, more or less. Truth be told, the story wasn't especially memorable. The series was more important for what it was than for the story it told. I don't feel like looking up a plot synopsis, because it made my head hurt years ago, and thinking about it makes my head hurt now.

Following Crisis, the late 1980s and 1990s were fertile ground for new exploration of these characters. Their past history may or may not have existed, and DC allowed the use of "retcons" (retroactive continuity) into the mix. If something that had come before didn't work, or needed to be changed, change or ignore it. (The Jason Todd Robin getting an entirely new backstory is an obvious example of this policy.) Bad for the people who sit in their parents' basements trying to write Wikipedia entries on a character's history, good for people who might wonder exactly how Robin could've fought in World War II and still be a teenager.

Unfortunately, as much as I love comics, and the superhero genre in particular, I don't read anything from DC anymore (aside from the occasional title from their non-DC Universe imprint for mature readers, Vertigo). Rising prices and an insistence upon "edgy" stories from both major publishers, as well as their all but cutting out any stores but dedicated comic shops, have led to the average reader being much older than he used to be. (I'm not going for a sexist term, but the average reader of superhero comics has always been male, which is unfortunate as well.) The industry is dominated by the so-called fanboy, who is more concerned with tight continuity, shock value, and the status quo than in reading a well-formed story with broad appeal. (Oh, and big guns. And boobs. Can't forget the boobs.) And, so, both DC and Marvel are made up of monthly ongoing titles that have become little more than filler in between the massive epic crossovers, of which there are usually at least two per publisher each year. DC has been especially loopy, spending the past three or four years (and who knows how far into the future) undoing Crisis on Infinite Earths in a neverending series of crossovers with names like Infinite Crisis and Countdown to Final Crisis. When the guys in charge don't realize what a moronic concept the Superhorse was in the first place and bring him back, it's time to get out of the pool.

(At this point, who cares anymore? Go back to stories about Batman beating thugs over the head or Superman foiling Lex Luthor's latest plot, and can the cosmic garbage. I hate when there are stories about these massively powerful godlike beings wreaking havoc with existence, yet, somehow, guys like Batman and Spider-Man can save the world.)

So, long story short, I was aiming for a cheap, hopefully catchy, pun. Though making sense out of many different, seemingly opposing, schools of thought wouldn't be a bad goal to shoot for.

WWJD: Proposition 8

"'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?' He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'"
--Luke 10:36-37 (NRSV)

What is my major reasoning for starting this journal?

I was raised in Southern Baptist church in the "Bible Belt." For the past couple of years, my wife and I have attended a Baptist church in the Inland Empire that has, until very recently, seemed rather forward-looking. I've been able to overlook the putrid music (I much prefer the classic hymns to the inane, repetitive blather of "Christian rock" that is so common in churches now) in order to attend a church that hasn't been quick to judge others. Or so I thought.

Two weeks ago, the pastor gave an excellent sermon on a passage from Galatians, a New Testament book that deals mainly with the early Christians (and, by extension, those of us today) no longer being bound by the Mosaic Law. The wages of sin may be death, but God recognizes that all people, by nature, commit sins, which is why Jesus died for everyone. No one is perfect. The Law is actually constricting to our spiritual growth, as it comprises ethical, social, and even hygienic rules which are difficult, if not impossible to maintain, and the penalties extremely harsh. They were useful in keeping an unruly bunch of former slaves in line to form a strong nation without giving in to the temptations of the various religions already found in Canaan.

By extension, the pastor said (and I cannot agree more), one cannot maintain that some laws apply and some do not (a sort of "picking and choosing"), nor can one attribute more import to one law over another. What is important is to recognize that no one can achieve perfection, and therefore not to judge others for sinning.

Excellent sermon, all said. The trouble is, he gave it as my mind was still reeling from his encouraging the congregation to go to a "No on 8" rally later in the day.

For those of you who do not live in California, Proposition 8 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. The argument has grown quite heated, and those groups in favor have resorted to some truly despicable tactics that would make Swift Boat Veterans for Truth blush. Rallies at churches are only the tip of the iceberg. Most obviously, they've been charging that churches would lose tax-exempt status for not performing same-sex marriages (untrue), and that schools will be required to teach them (also untrue, and, besides, are people worried about their kids learning tolerance?).

I won't deny that Leviticus calls for the execution of homosexuals. It also, however, denies women of pretty much all rights and condemns eating quite a few animals that are commonly found on menus today. Some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy border on ridiculous--for example, if a man has sex with his wife during her period, the couple is to be cut off from society altogether. (This raises the obvious question of how anyone other than the husband and wife could ever know this, once society moved beyond the point where women had to sequester themselves during their period.) There's nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, nor in the teachings of Jesus. The Law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was important for its time, and still historically significant to the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it is no longer the law of the land. (If it were, I'd be stoned for marrying a woman of a different ethnic background.)

Homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identification are not choices anyone makes. Simple common sense should tell us this. Who would ever willingly choose to embrace a lifestyle that, if discovered, has meant until very recently ostracization, or, more likely, death? (Without the promise of an afterlife to make up for it, I mean.) And, if it's a choice, how does one explain gay animals, which don't have the capacity to reason and make such choices?

And, if it's not a choice one makes, it can't be a sin, as sin is contingent upon one's willing disobedience to God. That's my belief. One does not choose their skin color, and, thankfully, our society has finally realized (for the most part) that skin color should be neither a hindrance nor an asset. Hopefully soon we'll realize the same thing about sexual preference.

However, if someone wants to believe it's a choice and a sin, they're free to do so. They are not, under the Constitution of the United States, free to infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If Ellen DeGeneres wants to marry Portia de Rossi, and that's what will make them happy, no one has a right to interfere. It simply does not affect anyone else. Well, except for those who watched Arrested Development and had crushes on Ms. de Rossi, but, hey, did you really think you had a chance anyway?

Our rights as Americans aren't contingent upon everyone else's belief. Regardless of one's own beliefs and feelings on the issue, it is wrong and un-American to strip others of the rights we enjoy. It wasn't right to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II because of where their ancestors were born, it wasn't right to condone and encourage slavery and segregation because of skin color, and it isn't right to take away the legal benefits granted to married couples because they happen to be of the same gender. This isn't a redefinition of marriage as it exists. It isn't an attack on marriage. It's a fight for the rights granted to all Americans by those men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the men and women who have fought to end inequality based on gender and race. Vote for a gay marriage ban and, bluntly, you are voting against the ideals of heroes like Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

You're also voting against the ideals preached by Jesus. This was a man who avoided the religious establishment and hung out with adulteresses, tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves. He didn't have to agree with them; He saw them as needing love and compassion. Even if one believes that homosexuality is a sin that has to be dealt with by the church, it certainly won't do much good to alienate an entire community from said church.

Jesus said on several occasions that we should give to those in need, and provide for the Lord's work. I agree. That's why I used the money I would've given to the church as offerings for the next month, donating it to the anti-Prop. 8 movement. It may not be much, but if my measly donation helps air one TV spot that sways one person's opinion, it was well spent.

And, besides, if those people and organizations opposed to gay marriage are so concerned with "protecting the sanctity of marriage," then why don't they push to outlaw divorce?

Kicking and screaming, into the blogosphere

I always swore I would never do this. Blogs have always seemed to me to be self-indulgent flights of vanity. Even the name "blog" sounds like something the cat hocked up on the floor and that you might step in when you wake up and are walking to the bathroom.

But this past week has made me rethink this idea. True, the name still is an embarrassment to the English lexicon, but the idea of a sort of public diary has grown on me. I've sporadically kept journals in the past, and the content tends to drift toward the deeper questions about existence and the human experience. And, frankly, living in a rural and heavily conservative area as I now do, I miss the long discussions with friends I had in my college days, where two people can disagree (even vehemently so) about issues, but remain civil. (Sadly, the Inland Empire is hardly a bastion of tolerance of even mildly differing viewpoints.)

I wouldn't exactly call it a crisis of faith, per se, but I grow alarmed at the cultural divide in our nation, where those who believe in a higher power increasingly isolate themselves from "mainstream" society, which eliminates a crucial balance for society to hold together. Abraham Lincoln once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand; though this isn't quite what he was referring to, the statement is no less true.

And so, I embark on what may be a fruitful quest, or a waste of time. I can't tell yet. Hopefully, articulating my thoughts on the deep issues of modern society (religion, politics, and pop culture--hey, I didn't say they were deep in anyone's mind but my own) and discussing them will lead to something, if only a better understanding of my own thoughts and beliefs. I plan to once again try to read through the Bible front to back (I've attempted this before, but always get sidetracked somewhere around I Chronicles, though I've read most of the rest in bits and pieces), using this as a sort of contract between myself and anyone reading to do so.

My beliefs aren't quite "normal" for the religious set. I encourage anyone reading to agree or disagree as they see fit. I only ask that anyone responding keep the tone civil; any hateful, obscene, or derogatory comments will be deleted. Disagreement is ultimately a good thing, but it shouldn't lead to anger or insults. For my part, I'll try to update this at least once a day. (And, conversely, update it only once or twice a day. I have a tendency to ramble.)

In case anyone is wondering, I will explain the reasoning behind both the title and the somewhat weird image to your right over the next few days. It's not totally random insanity. (It's calculated insanity.)

Somehow, this post still seems self-indulgent. I suppose an introduction must. Perhaps tomorrow, I can feel less like a jackass tooting my own horn.