Post-[Chat]

I spent most of the weekend writing, but i also fell down the youtube hole.

this is what i found.

Weeble Impersonator

Stowaway kitty reunited with her family

Check the picture. Complete Weeble Impersonation.

The Case for Ron Paul

While standing on stage with people like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee answering questions about political positions Ron Paul can't help but appear intellectually alluring. Watching the Republican Debate last night I began to understand what Ron Paul supporters see in the man. He is an actual conservative: The sort of person who promotes small government, fiscal responsibility, and a foreign policy of "none". He's the sort of person I would unquestioningly vote for provided that he dismissed that whole "god" thing.

Of course, Ron Paul maintains unreasonable notions about how the United States government ought to function. While "crazy" may be a bit of a stretch Ron Paul does have some odd, oudated ideas of how our government ought to function.

But are these ideas necessarily bad or detrimental? I do not think so.

The government of the United States is an experiment; the founders did not know what would come of the system they put in place. They had ideas and theories based upon the writings of dipshits about how best to govern a society but no real historical attempt to work from. So they wrote a Constitution and let the experiment begin.

The problem is that people forget this and cling to the notion that how things are somehow indicates how things truly ought to be. Whether by clinging to the past, present, or a concept of the future we construct notions of normalcy and "right" to which we cling. It's a coping mechanism based upon our need for permanence. For example, initially people were opposed to Social Security; now we are in dire fear of it failing. What changed? We grew accustomed to having it. But this embrace of fabricated normalcy is not necessarily the best way of existing in the world. There could be other, better, systems of government. Change could be a good thing.

Which is why I would really like to see Ron Paul elected president. I want to know what would happen if we had no IRS, returned to the gold standard, and pulled literally all of our military personnel back to the United States. I'm curious. Sure, some things could break and we might experience a few problems in the transition. But we survived George W. Bush. Do you really think that ridding ourselves of the IRS would be more problematic than the War in Iraq?

If things somehow go completely to shit then in four years we'll elect another John Jackson or Jack Johnson from either of the two established political parties and so regain our monotonous, acceptable system. Or, hell, most of the people running for president right now will still be alive. We could just declare a mulligan and let these guys and gal go back to lying to us.

So why not let Ron Paul run through the government for four years deleting, cutting, and trimming? Why not get rid of the IRS and then bring it back in four years if we really need to? Why not try out the whole gold standard thing for a few years? Why not get rid of affirmative action, eminent domain, and the war on drugs? Are we really in such a delightful, joyous, and perfect situation that some Ron Paul provided change would be life-shatteringly problematic?

I don't necessarily agree with everything Ron Paul thinks. But I am quite bored. So I say we elect Ron Paul president and see what happens. Because Ron Paul has one thing to offer that no other candidate has:

Ron Paul would make life interesting.

The Number one Reason to Vote for Barack Obama is....

Obama did the top ten list on Letterman last Night: The Ten Campaign Promises. As a Letterman Top Ten List Goes, it fulfills of the generic conventions (a joke about oprah and one about Regis)

I think it is nice that Obama and Edwards are willing to make fun of themselves. Vote Obama.

10. To keep the budget balanced, I'll rent the situation room for sweet sixteens.

9. I will double your tax money at the craps table.

8. Appoint Mitt Romney secretary of lookin' good.

7. If you bring a gator to the White House, I'll wrassle it.

6. I'll put Regis on the nickel.

5. I'll rename the tenth month of the year "Barack-tober."

4. I won't let Apple release the new and improved Ipod the day after you bought the previous model.

3. I'll find money in the budget to buy Letterman a decent hairpiece.

2. Pronounce the word nuclear, nuclear.

1. Three words: Vice President Oprah.

Kucinich out.

Congressman to make formal announcement friday.

His plans involve returning to Congress and having sex with his incredibly hot wife.

GH3 Classic Pack

GH3 Classic Pack Available

Journey: "Any Way You Want It"
Foreigner: "Jukebox Hero"
Boston: "Peace of Mind".

WANT

The Bible and Homosexuality.

The Westboro Baptist Church plans to protest Heath Ledger's memorial service because, all together now, God Hates Fags. This latest Westboro moment has reminded me of a goal I've had for a while now. I want to go through the Bible and find every verse related to homosexuality and then find verses from the same books which no one heeds anymore.

For example, I would post Leviticus 18:22:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

I would then post Leviticus 11:10-12:
"But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."

Because, to me, it seems reasonable to argue that if one can completely ignore Leviticus 11:10-12 then it is also reasonable to completely ignore Leviticus 18:22. If only because any "logic" used to argue that it's now ok to eat lobster despite what God said (if we are to take that view of the Bible) will also support the idea that it's now ok to suck dick despite what God said. That is, of course, unless we are to distinguish between eating and sucking. And, really, I'd just like to hear a Christian fundamentalist nutcase make that argument; hopefully with diagrams and a demonstration.

The problem with my little goal is that
1) It is a lot of work.
2) I am really, really lazy.

Additionally, people have already made arguments similar to the one I want to make as well as arguments which are far better. Hell, wikipedia has an entry on the Bible and homosexuality which goes through, verse by verse, detailing the history and context and translation. There are also real websites which explore the Bible verses related to homosexuality and note particularities of translations and what the original Hebrew actually meant.

If we want to abandon the verse-by-verse argument and adopt a "in general" or broad view of the Bible and homosexuality there are sites which approach the debate from that angle as well. We can read about three same-sex relationships described in the Bible, exploring both the particular verses and their relation to the work as a whole.

What I do not understand, after spending the four minutes on google required to find all of this information, is how people can take this nuanced, historical, scholarly argument which explores the Bible as a historical text and simplify it all down to, "God hates Fags. Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!"

If one honestly gives a shit about The Bible and if one honestly believes that there is an invisible man living in the sky who inspired the book and has a message to communicate to us I would think that such a person would, I don't know, read the fucking book and pay attention to scholars and interested parties who put forth the effort require to compile all of this information in an easily accessed manner.

The problem, I think, is that people do not desire to assess the work from an unbiased perspective. Insane people like the Westboro Baptist Church and Rick Santorum have an objective in mind when they approach the debate: They really don't like gay people. So instead of reading the Bible and understanding the nuance and particulars and complete bat-shit-insanity of Leviticus they stumble upon Leviticus 18:22, close the book, close their minds, consider their viewpoint justified, and let forth verbal torrents of hate at fellow human beings who happen to be homosexuals.

And the only thing worse than someone who thinks there is an invisible man living in the sky is someone who uses the child-like innocence of delusional fuckwits to rally support for their own hate-driven, intolerant message.

If you're going to ignore your day to day experiences, build onto reality the fabricated notion of an invisible sky daddy, and latch onto The Book which a group of historical grifters foisted onto your forebears under the guise of Godly dictation then at the very least you ought to read the damn thing and research the historical context of the work and the nuances of translation required to understand what The Book actually says.

Even if that does negate all of the premises upon which you base your belief in invisible sky daddy and your justification for your intolerant, narcissistic gay bashing.