26-July-2004 -- Catholic World News Brief

POPE ASKS PRAYERS FOR PEACE IN AFRICA
Castel Gandalfo, Jul. 26 (CWNews.com) - At his Sunday Angelus audience on July 25, Pope John Paul II called upon the faithful to pray for peace in Africa, particularly in Uganda and Sudan. Speaking at his summer residence in Castel Gandalfo, to a crowd that gathered in the courtyard there, the Holy Father said that despite the relaxation of the summer, "my thoughts are turning frequently to the tragic conditions of several regions of the world." In particular, he said, he thought of violence in Africa. "For more than 18 years, northern Uganda has been devastated by a inhuman conflict which involves millions of people, most of them children," the Pope said.

"How can we remain indifferent?" the Pope asked.

I suppose you'd think I was utterly heartless if I told you I laughed out loud when I read this. Haven't you learned to trust me yet?

The Pope was talking about the military conflicts in Africa, and begged the international community to stand up and protest the senseless loss of life. He was also simultaneously ignoring the fact that he personally oversees an organization that has killed more Africans than all wars in the last 20 years combined. He begs for us to think of the children, while praying we don't think of the ones infected by a deadly plague because of his specific directives to Catholic missionaries in Africa.

I am, of course, speaking about the Catholic Church and its blatant lies about AIDS and condoms.

"Relying on condoms is like betting on your own death," said Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican's spokesperson on family affairs. "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom," he says. Catholic Bishops and Cardinals are, at this very moment, repeating this idea across four continents, at the express direction of the Vatican. Some priests even state that condoms are laced with AIDS, according to AIDS activists in Kenya. Nairobi Archbishop Raphael Ndingi Nzeki says "AIDS... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms." The Vatican has issued statements refusing to disagree or correct this statement.

A recent BBC program, "Sex and the Holy City," even shows footage of a Catholic nun telling her HIV-positive choir master not to use latex condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through." Far from denying this footage, the Vatican has reissued its support for such statements.

The National Institutes of Health constructed a panel to examine the effectiveness of condoms in preventing disease, and included anti-condom advocates on that panel. According to its report from 2001, latex condoms are impermiable to even the smallest pathogens, and HIV is actually one of the STDs that condoms are most effective against. Scientific research by groups such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health has found "intact condoms... are essentially impermeable" to HIV, and that "condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission" of HIV. The World Health Organization reacted with horror to the Vatican's claims, immediately denouncing such misinformation and saying it was especially deadly to perpetuate such ideas when the world is facing a global pandemic that has already killed 20 million people.

The Vatican's Trujillo responded to these points: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognizable fact."

Something that may surprise many readers of mine is that I am not a liberal. Not only that, but I tend to not get along with people who identify themselves as Liberal. Discussions of politics and economics are the fastest and most surefire way for my socialist (pinko!) boyfriend and me to start a screaming match. Perhaps knowing this will make it more understandable when I say that I have, until today, reserved judgment about Ann Coulter. Granted, all the Coulter snippets I have read lead me to believe she is a four-letter word referring to an area of female anatomy, but I try not to make up my mind about any political pundit until I have read at least one of their books; I think it's unfair to judge a person entirely by their sound bites.

However, today I read Coulter's latest book, Treason, and in retrospect I am glad I never used that four-letter word, because it would be an insult to all genuine four-letter-word people in the world. Ann Coulter isn't even worth insulting. According to pretty much everybody, Coulter is "the leading right-wing pundit" of our time, and if that's true then all I can say is: whoa, sucks to be the right-wing. The woman does nothing more than link various neo-con slogans together into a book-length production and then use her supposedly attractive picture on the cover to get people to pay money for the privilege of reading them. While I admire her ability to make money off the gullibility of the public, I really can't respect anything about her work. In my world you have to earn the status of a four-letter word by being a genuine pain in the ass, and you generally have to do so with flare and biting humor. As my friend Mike would put it, Coulter isn't funny "ha-ha", she's funny "uh-oh."

The first thing I noticed while reading Treason was that the three quotes used in the inner flap blurb were all from the first 5 pages of the book; this suggests that even the reviewers, who claimed the book was "even more controversial and prescient" than Coulter's break-out hit Slander, could not keep awake long enough to finish the second half of the first chapter. I know my eyelids started to sag when she accused liberals of "treating enemies like friends and friends like enemies." I guess nobody told Coulter about Bush's "you're with us or against us" speech or his alienation of our allies in the Middle East when he drew the borders of his Axis of Evil with an indiscriminate hand. She must be likewise unaware of that little Republican snafu called the Iran Contra affair, where our Republican administration financially supported a few of America's enemies. Her criticism of liberals for lifting trade sanctions is likewise snore-worthy, since Bush was the one who asked the UN to lift the sanctions against Iraq. Though I suppose that doesn't count any more, since we have accomplished our mission and nobody is dying in combat in Iraq any more, right?

As if all these snoozers weren't enough to leave you begging for the mercy of a quick death, Coulter even pouts about how liberals write nasty things about conservatives in the paper...clearly forgetting that she herself has a column that is pretty much dedicated to saying nasty things about liberals.

I did perk up long enough to laugh out loud when Coulter claimed that "liberals never wage war," however. I'm a little rusty on my history, but I am pretty sure it was Harry Truman, one of those loathsome Democrats, who was the only human being EVER to drop two atomic bombs on a foreign nation. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as warfare...?

There are, of course, the obligatory several chapters spent calling all liberals (or people who agree with liberals, ever) Communists. Coulter takes plenty of time explaining how Joe McCarthy was a true saint for defending America from the godless pinkos, and he has been smeared by an evil liberal conspiracy to doctor history books and vilify him. She re-writes a little history by claiming it was liberals who stopped McCarthy's crusade, when it was actually President Eisenhower who pushed to get the McCarthy hearings televised so the public could see Joe's tactics, and it was the Republican Senate that shut McCarthy down in the censure investigation. She also repeatedly states that the term "McCarthyism" is a made-up liberal buzzword, and "'McCarthyism' never existed," despite the fact that it was the title of McCarthy's own book.

One of the cutest parts of the entire book for me was when, I think in chapter 3, Coulter tries to support her view of history by saying that there is plenty of evidence for the Communist threat to America, thereby vindicating McCarthy and his tactics. The funny part is that said evidence consists of, in Coulter's words, "the detailed accounts given in sworn testimony by various ex-Communists...Chambers’s Pumpkin Papers...Soviet defectors who brought reams of KGB documents with them, identifying Soviet agents in America...There were confessions of arrested spies..." So after spending a chapter and a half talking about how horrid and immoral Communists are, Coulter rests her case entirely upon the word of--you guessed it--COMMUNISTS.

I dozed off and on through several more chapters on the godless Commie lefties, and I think she re-edited our history of the Vietnam War for a chapter or two as well. I won't bore you with more details, since it's pretty much all the same sort of material as I've already covered, except to share the final giggle of the whole story: Coulter concludes her little 14-chapter temper tantrum with the blithe assertion that "Liberals instinctively vote for anarchy and against civilization." I find that interesting, since she dedicated at least a full three chapters to accusing liberals of supporting totalitarianism (in the form of Communism). Very odd, this woman.

I was completely under whelmed by Miss Coulter, having expected more from the "foremost conservative pundit" than the same sort of blathering I heard from some of my classmates in freshman civics. Honestly, her book almost made me convert to liberalism, if only to distance myself as much as possible from such a shoddy writer; I certainly will never call myself a member of any party that can't come up with better than Coulter for a spokeswoman.

I am a Ronald Reagan fan. 

No, not the Gipper, the Junior Gipper.  The son who said, at his father's well-publicized funeral, "Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man, but he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians -- wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage."  A subtle hint to the neo-cons of today, and one that was well phrased to both leave no doubt of its intent and also to give no opennings for direct rebuttal.

The chap who was chastized by William Buckley for admitting respect for Buddhist teachings in an interview with the New York Times.  As Buckley sees it, saying he admired Buddhist teachings of ''mindfulness and loving kindness and compassion," was Ron's way to "profane/deride the faith of [his] parents, which is not very mindful.''  I guess it would be more respectful of Ron to pretend faith he does not feel and to express contempt and hatred for other religious groups.  Or perhaps he should simply not think anything his folks might potentially disagree with, since that sort of mindless obedience is every parent's hope for their offspring.

I especially like how Ron's failure to vote for George W. Bush was refered to as "the political infidelity of the son of Ronald Reagan" by the same people who accuse Ron of playing up his famous father for a personal agenda (said selfish agenda being the advance of  stem cell research for the purpose of saving lives and curing disease).  Aparently, when he votes or talks about voting, Ron Reagan is supposed to base his decisions entirely on the party his father belonged to, but when he talks about issues on which his father disagreed with that party he isn't supposed to let anybody know he's a Reagan.  Interesting. 

But best of all, Ron Reagan, Jr., wasn't afraid to make an appearance at the DNC, and he was strong enough to refuse requests to use his speech for Bush-bashing.  As Reagan told The Philadelphia Inquirer, "This gives me a platform to educate people about stem cell research."  Since the GOP was not willing to allow him that forum, and the Democrats were, the simple fact that he is there will be a message on the party differences, and trying to use Reagan as a tool for more partisan name-calling would only weaken the thrust. 

Granted, he does carry the tainted legacy of his senile, warlord-supporting, drug-dealing, economy-crippling pater, but it looks like little Ronny may be a prime example of environment and human intellect trumping genetic predisposition.

Interesting responses to yesterday's post, both via email and in the comments section, have led me to continue that issue further.  If you thought it was boring the first time then I suggest you not read further today.  If you've got the stomach for a little more of it, then put on your Let's Pretend hat again and enter the world where God is real...

First off, everybody read the comments from yesterday, because both the emails I got made essentially the same points.  The gist is that prayers are necessary because God wrote them into The Plan, even though He knew everything beforehand and didn't really need the prayers; He just wants you to say it to formalize the arrangement.  He wants us to be reminded of our involvement in The Plan, and to drive home our relationship with Him via prayer.   By showing God that we are thinking about Him enough to tip our heads and close our eyes for a second, we score points with Him. 

I dunno, none of that stuff makes the least bit of sense to me.  It sounds like people are claiming that God knows everything, including what we really think and feel, yet he wants us to think some of it especially hard whilst bowing our heads just for the hell of it.  Apparently He wrote into The Plan that we are going to waste time telling him stuff he already knows, and if that's true then I've gotta wonder if the rest of his plan isn't likewise horribly inefficient and illogical.  

If He wanted to reinforce our relationship with Him then why not, oh I don't know, give us a single bloody reason to believe he exists?  Why not actually interact with us, if our connection with Him is so important?  Or, alternatively, if it's all supposed to be about faith and not about actually knowing He's up there, then why should we try to reinforce a concrete relationship with him through prayer?  Shouldn't we just have faith that He hears our thoughts and wishes and is doing His best?  Why should we need a physical, concrete process to strengthen our resolve?  Doesn't that show that our faith isn't strong enough?

As for using prayer to score points with God, I would think most prayer would do just the opposite if God has any sense of justice.  Most people pray primarily when they want shit, which must feel pretty much like having kids who only call when they need money.  Not to mention that people are encouraged to use form-letter prayers and recite devotional passages from memory; God already knows if we are sincerely impressed or thankful, so why would He want us to recite mass-produced Hallmark prayers in a transparent attempt to kiss His celestial ass?

Plus, I have to think that the "Wow" type of prayers are pretty lame coming from beings as far below God as we are, since we can't possibly appreciate the scope of his creation.  Humans are so far below any Originating Force that our praise on God's work would be like a preschooler telling a brain surgeon that he did a nice job; it's sweet and all, but it doesn't really mean anything because the kid doesn't have the faintest idea what really went on. 

Hell, we humans are probably impressed by all the wrong things anyway.  We look at a sunset and go, "Wow, what wonder of Creation!" or get all wet-eyed when we see a rainbow, all while God is sitting there thinking, "Why don't they ever notice the topsoil?  Sunrise and meteorological phenomena are easy, but topsoil was really hard!  They just don't understand me and my needs as an artist.  I'm going to eat a bucket of ice cream."

Okay, the Let's Pretend hat is giving me a migraine, so we'll take a breather.  I'll try to come up with something cheerfully secular for tomorrow...perhaps something on DemFest Boston 2004?

UPDATE: As usual, the Devil's Dictionary said it better in a sentence than I have in many paragraphs..."Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy."

Okay, kids, I feel like making history today.  For the first time EVER, we are going to assume that God's existence has been established to our satisfaction.  That's right, we're going to all play Let's Pretend for a while, and assume we are believers.  Hang in there, this is all in the name of enlightenment...(I know, I know, that's what the priests tell you, just bear with me for a minute)...

Now, believe it or not, we've only just finished the easy part.  Having twisted our minds to accept the existence of and all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator of the Universe, we now need to figure out the real logical dilemma for the day: why we would PRAY to our God.  If you start to think about this for a little, you will begin to see yet another layer of confusion in organized religion. 

According to the God Squad, there are four basic types of prayers (or "P-mail") that we humans send up: Thanks, Gimme, Oops, and Wow.  Thanks are saying cheers to God for an already-received blessing, Gimmes ask for some new blessing, Oops express regret and penitence for a sin or mistake of some kind, and Wow is general awe at how groovy a chap God is. 

The way I see it, the only way any of these prayers can make less sense than they do without God is if one DOES believe in God.  After all, if God has "a plan," or if God is all-knowing, then everything that is going to happen is already known to him.  He's already decided what he will do, so "Gimmes" are pointless because he will just ignore them if they don't correspond to his plan; indeed, if he DID grant one that went against his original idea then he would be logically disproving his own all-knowingness. Thanks are likewise irrelevant, because he didn't do anything other than what he was planning on all along, and so he wasn't doing it for you anyway.  Oops don't matter because he knew that you were going to mess up and already decided whether or not he was going to forgive you, and anyhow his all-knowingness already is aware of how sorry you are (or are not). Wow is the only one that might have merit, but since he already knows how impressed you are (by definition of omniscience) then why bother to pray it to him? He's aware of how cool he is, and, being all-powerful, doesn't need validation from one of his creations.

So look at that.  We went to all the trouble of assuming God exists, and we still have no reason to pray to him.   I guess all those people who want prayer in schools must have been bowing their heads and muttering to their imaginary friend while their class learned basic logical reasoning.

The next time a Bush supporter yells at you for calling Dubya a liar, give them the link for the report from the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office--that's Henry Waxman's (D-CA) group.   

The Committee has documented 273 statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice that were misleading at the time they were said.   And just in case anybody was thinking about quibbling over the nature of "misleading," here's a taste of the Committee's work:

The statements in the database are drawn from 125 public statements or appearances in which the five officials discussed the threat posed by Iraq. The sources of the statements are 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements or articles, and 2 appearances before congressional committees.

Quotes from the officials in newspaper articles or other similar secondary sources were not included in the database because of the difficulty of discerning the context of such quotes and ensuring their accuracy. Statements made by the officials before March 2002, one year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, were also not included. The database contains statements about Iraq from the five officials that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made.

In compiling the database, the Special Investigations Division did not assess whether “subjectively” the officials believed a specific statement to be misleading. Instead, the investigators used an “objective” standard. For purposes of the database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.

The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous.

Just look at how careful they were with their standards, certainly more generous than any Democrat would receive in a similar situation, and yet 273 documented instances of lying.  And now it's all nicely tied up in a package for us to leave at the doorsteps of the Shrub supporters.  Special thanks to Incertonia for tipping me off to this.

The capybara is a shy and intelligent rodent that in size (40 Kg) and colour looks much like a pig. Yet in the 16th Century, in response to a petition by Venezuelans and Colombians, the Pope decreed that the capybara is a fish. This dispensation enables observant communicants to consume the creature during the Fast of Lent (when the consumption of meat is prohibited). To this day, that rodent remains a fish in the eyes of the Catholic God.

As if Barbie didn't already cater to enough stereotypes, now there's going to be the Little Gay Doll That Could.  That's right, "Bobbie" came onto American shelves last week, and she's ready to dyke the world in her muscle t-shirt, leather jacket, and tattoos.

Creator Stephanie Prod got the idea for her lesbian Barbie while working on her NYU master's thesis on lesbians' underrepresentation in popular culture; she apparently thought that gay women have an equal right to be stereotyped and given eating disorders by toy makers, and took it upon herself to ensure that the next generation of lesbians will grow up as self-conscious as their straight counterparts.

Her plan might have one small wrinkle, in that the Bobbie dolls come with their own mini vibrators and cannot be purchased by anybody under 18, making them yet another example of pop culture turning homosexuality into a novelty. 

This delicious pastiche is perfectly topped off with sprinkles of hilarity when one reads the reactions of those on the "Rapture Ready" forums; nothing has me rolling in the aisles quite like the outrage from proud, Rapture-fearing parents who complain about a gay toy their kids won't ever see.  They feel fine telling their kids that God is going to send most of the human race to suffer in a torture dimension for the rest of eternity, but they can't handle explaining that boys sometimes kiss other boys and girls sometimes do more than play tea party together.

Yesterday the 900th American soldier died in Iraq, the 762nd since our Mission was Accomplished over a year ago.  Never let it be said that George W. Bush doesn't know how to pick his moments, because he chose yesterday to announce that he wishes to be remembered as the "peace president."

According to Bush's address to a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, "Nobody wants to be the war president."  An interesting statement, made more interesting by the fact that it is coming from a man who, on February 7th of this year, told NBC's Meet the Press that "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."

Bush may have been jumping the gun (again) when he promised that "the next four years will be peaceful years," since that would require that American military presence in Iraq be completely absent within 4 months.  Not even the most optimistic of strategists has proposed such a goal, leading one to wonder if perhaps Bush needs to don his flight suit again to win support for his theory that "peace" often involves American soldiers dying in combat.

"The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend so much of your life defending sons of bitches; for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally, and oppression must be stopped in the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H.L. Mencken

Case in point, the ACLU's case on behalf of Rush Limbaugh, a man who recently tried to mathematically prove liberals are unpatriotic using his incorrect grasp of poll results. 
 
On July 3, Limbaugh reasoned, "...A new Gallup poll out for the Independence Day weekend, showed that 7 in 10 Americans are 'extremely proud' to be Americans. If you go inside this poll, however, you find these astounding numbers: eighty percent of conservatives are extremely proud of the country, compared with 68% of moderates and 56% of liberals. More than 8 in 10 Republicans are extremely proud to be Americans, while two-thirds of Democrats feel this way. Only 56% of liberals are proud of this country, folks. Meanwhile conservatives and Republicans are overwhelmingly proud. What does this tell you, my friends?"
 
Well, Rush, it tells those of us who know how to read that you are a total dipshit.  Because our reading skills allow us to find out that 'extremely proud' was only one of several choices: extremely proud, very proud, moderately proud, only a little proud, not at all, & no opinion. While 56% of liberals said 'extremely proud,' almost all of the rest said that they were very or moderately proud. All in all, 1% of all respondents said, 'not proud at all,' meaning that even if ALL the "not prouds" were all liberal then you still have only 3% of liberals who aren't proud to be Americans.
 
Of course, "only 97% of liberals are proud of this country" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?  And where's the fun in being Rush Limbaugh if you can't have the ACLU fighting the good fight for you while you slander the left wing on national radio?

UPDATE: The ACLU just can't get enough punishment, aparently, as they are now defending the free-speech rights of the people who come to Boston to protest the Democratic National Convention.  I would really appreciate if one of my friends in Boston would take some photos or keep a tally of the number of anti-ACLU posters that will be carried by the protesters.

Tragically ludicrous, or ludicrously tragic?

PORT ORANGE, Florida (AP) -- A man hit his girlfriend with a 3-foot alligator and threw beer bottles at her during an argument in the couple's mobile home, authorities said.
 
Nancy Monico, 39, told investigators that David Havenner, 41, beat her with his fists, then grabbed the alligator and swung it at her as she tried to escape, sheriff's spokesman Gary Davidson said. She said the animal hit her at least once. She also told authorities that Havenner threw empty beer bottles at her, Davidson said.
 
Havenner's version of the story differed. He told investigators that Monico bit his hand because she was upset that they had run out of alcohol. 

I can't make this stuff up, folks.

Today Democratic candidate John Kerry spoke at the NAACP's annual convention in Philadelphia, while George W. Bush became the first president since Hoover to decline invitations to the NAACP convention in every year of his presidency.   Bush did, however, speak to the convention while campaigning in 2000.

While the Bush administration originally claimed he would not be appearing this year due to a scheduling conflict, White House spokesman Scott McClellan now says that the real reason was "hostile political rhetoric about the president" from leaders in the NAACP.  While perhaps less media-friendly than the original excuse, this admission is significantly more plausible in light of the fact that Bush's scheduling did not prevent him from making his 30th campaigning visit to Pennsylvania just 2 days before the convention.   McClellan maintained that this will not hurt the administration's efforts to gain ground with African-American voters, and that "the president is going to reach out to everyone in the African-American community and ask for their vote based on his record and his vision for the country."
 
Given that Bush's record includes disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters in a national election, refusal to address racial profiling by state law enforcement while acting as Governor of Texas, and presiding over black unemployment rates twice as high as those for whites, using his record as a politician might not be the best angle for the Republicans to pursue.  Invoking his vision for the country does little better, since that vision is founded on belief in a God who endorses racism and slavery, and even forbids persons of mixed-racial heritage from entering places of worship. 
 
Small wonder that Bush's popularity among black voters landed him an abysmal 9% of their support in the last presidential election.  True, Republicans seldom land more than a 15% approval rating with blacks, but not since Barry Goldwater in 1964 has a Republican done quite as poorly as Bush.

What do Cheech Marin, Patrick Stewart, Harrison Ford, Nathan Bedford Forest, Cameron Crowe, Beatrice Potter's husband, and Mark "Animal" Mendoza all have in common?

They all get cake, candles, and birthday spankings on this very day! Or at least they were entitled to such perks until 1982, when July 13th became my personal and private holiday. My little brother showed prudent planning when he decided to be born on the 14th rather than the 13th (actually dodging My Day by a mere 1.5 hours), since violation of My Day would have necessitated selling him to gypsies at the first opportunity. Let that be a warning to all of you.

In a move that would shock only those who have been asleep for the last 50 years of American politics, the Republican party of Texas recently approved a plank for its platform which states that "the United States of America is a Christian nation."

While the Republican Party has not formally endorsed the platform, visible right-wing pundits wasted no time weighing in on the subject. Bill O'Reilly was, predictably, in favor of what he called a "largely symbolic" gesture to rebuff the secularist movement. Even better was the claim from "Hannity & Colmes," made by guest host Mike Gallagher, that "if a neighborhood had 82 percent of the population that was Italian or a town had 82 percent of the population that was Polish, we'd call those communities Italian or Polish towns. So why do liberals have such a knee-jerk reaction when anybody dares to suggest that with 82 percent of the population being Christian -- we are, in fact, a Christian nation?"

Obviously then we are also a White Nation, since over 3/4 of America is white. We are also a Fat Nation, and a Divorced Nation, since both categories boast a statistical majority of Americans. Oddly, there seems to be no movement toward endorsing such classifications, which leads to the puzzling conclusion that the Republicans might be acting somewhat...inconsistently. I know, I'm flabbergasted, too.

One op-ed in the Boston Globe objected to the plank, but did point out that "Secularist bigotry does exist. It can be found in policies that forbid any mention of faith in student graduation speeches in public schools, in campaigns to get Christmas decorations off public property, or in the recent successful push by the American Civil Liberties Union to remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal."

Yeah, damn that bigoted First Amendment! The Constitution always did pick on Christians. It wouldn't be so bad, except that stupid ACLU keeps trying to make sure that the Constitution is actually upheld, which ruins everybody's day. After all, if a violation of the Constitution is really little (like that cross in the state seal), or if it has something to do with the universally-celebrated holiday of Christmas, then it really should be allowed to slide.

People that support moves like this always try, as these Texans are doing in their plank, to claim that "our nation was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible." They do this by saying that even though the founders wrote the Constitution to keep religion out of government (and vice versa) the founders themselves were men of religion, and therefore our infant nation had good Christian parents. Never mind that this logic would also lead us to conclude that slavery is a founding principle of America, and would require us to overlook the tiny point that most of the leading framers of the Constitution were NOT CHRISTIAN. Little things like fact cannot stand before the awesome power of faith, after all.

At any rate, the Texan Republican Party has as much right to set down a definition of America as The Raving Atheist (feature article coming soon!) does, and thus it all cancels out in the end. These days fewer and fewer people are giving a fuck what some crazy Texan thinks, so I don't see this plank as much more than blog-fodder for those of us who get our yayas from picking on creatures as happless and mentally disadvantaged as the modern right-winger.

My birthday is fast approaching, so buy me stuff and take me out for drinks.

Seriously, though, the 13th of this month will mark 22 years of my presence on Earth, and 22 years of my failure to bring on the Rapture predicted by prophesy. Celebrate in whatever way you feel appropriate.

Interesting trivia fact: this year July 13th falls on a Tuesday, the same day that it fell on the year I was born. And, as we learned from Animaniacs, that is a critical fact:

"...But I should warn you, I haven't lost at checkers since the world began."
"Really? When was that?"
"It was a Tuesday. Very few people know that."

Doctor says very slowly and gravely "I'm sorry, you don't have long to live. You only have about er ten.." Quickly the man interrupts and demands "What? Years, Months, Weeks?" The doctor continues "Nine..Eight..Seven"

This is just one of the charming posts from a blog called Cancergiggles, written by a chap who is proceding toward death a bit faster than the rest of us. It's very much worth a read, especially if you want to see living (fingers crossed) proof that atheism and merriment are not estranged. As the author, Cass, puts it,

"For those who expect me to turn to God, I will only say that I have no intention of spending my remaining days futilely spinning round in circles looking for something I know to be a myth. The only result would be dizziness.

The following should be said, face to face, to any and all peddlers of religion: If I was in a room with you and two werewolves and I had a gun with two silver bullets, I'd shoot you -- twice."

People always seem strangely surprised when Americans fail to make sense, yet I don't see how anything else could be the expected outcome when we use a language as ironic and ridiculous as English. We use the word "stutter" even though those who have one can't say it, we have the ludicrous construction of the lexeme "monosylabically," and the World Wide Web is three-syllable term with a nine-syllable "abbreviation."

But the one that really cheeses my cracker is the fact that "flamable" and "inflamable" mean exactly the same freaking thing. I don't see why I should be minus 1.6 eyebrows just because some idiots in the lexicon department decided to shoot some hooch while writing the Webster's Guide To How To Talk Enlish Good. Stupid language.

Welcome Logan Mathias Shelstad, a rip-roaring youngster born via C-section this morning!