tBlog - In Flight

In Flight

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2004 June
2004 May
2004 February

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Fahrenheit 9/11

06.27.04 (1:19 pm) [edit]

Last night I went to see Farenheit 9/11 - Michael Moore's new documentary about the war on terrorism and how the Bush administration used 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq.

Disgusting.

Not the film itself. The actions of this administration. Bush must be fired. Ashcroft must be fired. Rumsfeld must be fired. And I feel so sorry for Colin Powell, believe it or not, because right now he has to be Bush's yes-man and find ways to justify Bush's wishes for the military.

One scene in the movie disturbed me a great deal - it was when Geo. W. Bush was at one of those black-tie affairs giving a speech. You know, $500/plate and all that. Solid gold candlesticks and all. He stood there and said, "This is like an assembly of the haves - and the have mores." His audience laughed, but the people in the theatre didn't think it was so funny. Then Bush said, "People call you the elite. I call you my support base."

Rat. Fucking. Bastard.

And for this man, the poorest kids in the nation who can't find work feel like they are forced to enlist in the military just to get a paycheck and hopefully earn money for college, and they are being shipped off to Iraq only to come back with limbs missing, nerve damage, or in a body bag.

Let me tell anyone who's reading this - right after 9/11 happened, I was writing on OpenDiary. When we struck Afghanistan, a former Marine and I both agreed that when the bodies started coming back, people would change their minds about going to war.

It's starting to happen. As I drove home from the movie last night, I had to stop at a convenience store to use the restroom. A storm had blown a lot of limbs down onto many of the roads I would normally drive on to get home, and many stoplights were not functional either thanks to the storm, and my bladder made its needs known to me. So I pulled in and used their restroom.

As I walked out the door, I saw a newspaper on the stand, talking about how NOW, a majority of Americans are starting to think that going to war with Iraq wasn't such a good idea after all. My question is, why has it taken people so long to come to their senses?

And this, even before many Americans have even seen Farenheit 9/11. That story went to press before the movie opened; last night was opening night for F - 9/11.

Farenheit 9/11 shows that for at least a decade now, if not more, the Bush family has been doing a lot of handshaking with the Saudi royal family and the Bin Laden family, and how they have been dumping obscene amounts of money into various companies that the Bushs have sat on the board of directors of, such as The Carlyle Group. Not only that but how people such as Ken Lay of ENRON supported President Bush. Not to mention the friendly ties they had with the Taliban too.

It's all about the money.

They say money talks. It does. So does connections and information. Money and information = power.

The elder Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, is former chief of the CIA. He was the "head spook." Few former Presidents make use of CIA briefings, as they are entitled to, but elder Bush reads them every day.

Never trust a spook (for those who have never heard that term, a spook is a CIA agent). Yet, we elected one to be President.

The movie shows how the administration has basically created from thin air a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and started throwing buzzwords around to confuse the American people and get us all to the point where we are so mixed up, we almost HAVE to look to President Bush for help/protection/whatever. The Department of Homeland Security has created an atmosphere of fear and mistrust with their "terror alert levels" of red and yellow and orange and all - and come on, folks, do you really think that the alert level will EVER drop to the begnin levels of blue and green?

Hell. Fuck. No. Not at long as that trigger-happy TexASS moron is in office. Not as long as Rummy and Ashcroft and all those people are in office.

This movie shows how urgently important it is, above all else, for Americans to take back our country. The men in power now are not out to protect our freedom, our rights. They want to protect THEIR MONEY, their investments, and they want to keep the American public uninformed about it and wandering around in the dark like lost cows so we the people don't ask too many questions and uncover too many really ugly, ugly truths.

9/11 gave them a perfect excuse to put into play things that they had wished so desperately to do - such as the evil Patriot Act.

Go here to read the Act: http://www.epic.org/privacy/t...

One man in the movie, I wish I could recall his name, said that the Act was passed and no one even read it. They don't bother to read MOST of the bills that they receive in the House before passing them. It slows things down too much.

I must take a moment here and say that I believe this movie should be required viewing by every single American. People need to know that the Saudis have invested enough money in the US that they pretty much own 1/7th of this country. Go see the movie, it discusses that.

There was another part in the movie that was darkly funny. At the end, Moore said he was sick of seeing distraught mothers weeping over sons lost in Iraq, and for a President whose interest is in money and not security. So he went downtown, to the Capitol building in DC, and was trying to get various members of Congress to have their children enlist in the military if they felt so strongly about the war effort.

None of them did it. MOST of them RAN AWAY from Moore. They didn't even want to TALK to him, or acknowledge his presence.

That says a lot. That says a lot about what a threat his very presence is. But the man has balls of absolute solid steel.

I didn't believe in the invasion of Iraq from day 1.

And what disgusted me was this: at my office, there is a conference room behind my desk. There is a TV in said conference room. When "Shock and Awe" was on TV, there were coworkers of mine watching it, and they came out of the conference room saying, "Oh that was sooooo COOL!"

Like it was some kind of video game.

I remember Cortney said that when she saw it. Cortney has a preteen daughter named Taylor.

I wonder if she'd have her daughter enlist and serve in Iraq. Probably not. Remember, most of the people in the ranks are poor folks. Can't find jobs in their hometowns. Feel like they have no choice. It's either public aid - crime - or the military for them, and public aid eventually runs out.

Cortney sends Taylor to a very exclusive, very expensive private school. Cortney's husband Al works for Lockheed Martin.

Taylor is one of the rich kids who won't have to put her life on the line, because some poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks put HIS or HER life on the line instead.

And if anyone goes to see this movie, be prepared - there are a few grisly images in it. Dead bodies, even of children. On both sides. US soldiers AND Iraqis. I think this drives the point home that death is just death, and death in warfare is really, really ugly. Horrible. If you have a sensitive stomach, don't take any popcorn or food into the movie. Just don't do it.

And this isn't special effects makeup such as my ex Dann can do. This is REAL death.

And to this day, the death continues. Unnecessary death. Avoidable death. Avoidable killing, every day.

What's more, F-9/11 points out that the newspapers weren't allowed to run photographs of the coffins of our men and women who were killed in action, yet it was allowed during the Vietnam conflict.

I won't say "war" because "war" was not legally declared by our Congress, as the US Constitution dictates. ONLY Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. I have read the full text of the US Constitution several times, and there are specific powers the President has, these being outlined in clear English right in the Constitution. It does NOT include the power to declare war. The only place that privilege appears is in the section outlining the powers of Congress.

I strongly urge every American whose eyes fall on this entry to do a search, pull up the full text of the US Constitution, and make an effort to sit down and read it. Yes it's dry and boring and a bunch of legalese, but it's our nation's most sacred document.

Hell, I urge every person who reads English to read it, so as to have a hand in keeping Americans accountable for following their own laws.

So anyway, from the very first moment, when you see how Bush stole the election and how there was very nearly a riot in DC on his inauguration day because the people KNEW he didn't belong there, to the stupid things homeland security has done (such as making one mother drink half of a bottle of her own breast milk because the airlines thought she was a terrorist and bringing a dangerous chemical onto a flight), to the way Geo. W. Bush just SAT THERE and did nothing after being told "we are under attack" on 9/11, the viewer is in shock.

It's unbelievable.

And the thing is, Moore just let events and people speak for themselves, for the most part in this movie.

More than "The Passion of the Christ" which I also saw, F-9/11 is a movie that people will come out of changed. We won't see our government the same way again. We won't allow ourselves to be duped again.

I was thinking about that as I drove home from the movie. I was thinking about how my mother would probably not approve of me seeing this movie and how I should not believe what a Hollywood man says about the government. First of all, sometimes I did find myself asking, "How DID Moore get this footage or documentation?" It's that incredible, the evidence he presents. Second, this is coming from a woman who thinks I should learn about life from watching movies like "Steel Magnolias" and whatnot. Mom believes what Fox News tells her.

But I won't, not ever again (not that I did before). All the more reason for me now to ignore the "terrorism alert" thing, knowing that it's being used to manipulate me into a position of fear to where I fall on my knees to my President and grovel for his protection from the big, bad terrorists.

FUCK THAT NOISE.

If that means I die, even in an explosion from some terrorist suicide bomber, then I will die FREE. I will die doing activities that make me happy, such as going to Disneyworld or Universal (I live in Orlando). I will die because to cower in my apartment all the time is no kind of life. To live in constant fear, constantly looking over my shoulder and wondering "are they coming to get me yet" is no life at all.

NO ONE will have control of MY mind like that. I won't give it to them.

And readers, don't even consider giving your power over to these slimeballs either. Just don't do it.

And not only that - if you are NOT registered to vote, do it. When election day comes, let your voice be heard LOUD and CLEAR.

No mistakes this time. The American people should be all the more alert now; after the 2000 election, we should be refusing to have the wool pulled over our eyes again.

As Bush himself couldn't manage to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

www.toostupidtobepresident.com

www.michaelmoore.com

www.moveon.org

*shakes head*

05.22.04 (3:12 pm) [edit]

I'm so glad that I'm trying to get away from the Pagan scene. There's just far too much ego going on there.

I was reading the blog of someone here named asatruviking, and this person is so wrapped up in all things Viking that he or she cannot even accept the fact that Boadicea was NOT a Viking queen. She was a Celt. But people often do this - they get stars in their eyes about how "badass" being a Viking is, or being a Celt is, and they try to assimilate everything into it. There is a LOT of that amongst ALL stripes of Pagans and Wiccans.

Of course, it has nothing to do with me. I just don't like it when I see it. It really just annoys me, that's about all.

Of late, I've been turning to the Dharma to comfort me and heal me as I've been away from Joe for so long. And it's funny; as I let the Dharma heal me, and as I become more confident away from Joe, all of a sudden he turns up and wants to screw me.

He contacted me this AM on messenger and wanted to have breakfast with me. I'm sure he wanted to screw me afterwards. But he hasn't been a very good friend of late, so why should I let him touch me?

At one time, I thought casual sex was a good thing. But...now I'm not so sure. And this when I'm coming up on my period soon and I do feel somewhat horny. No, it seems to me there IS something for saying NO to a man and sticking to it, out of a sense of self-respect.

If I give in to him, it'll only teach him that he can get away with treating me like something less than a human being and still fuck my brains out.

No thanks. I'd brought that up to him once, but he denied that. I don't see him treating me like a human being these days.

Hell, I'd even tried to get him to clear his messages on his mobile phone but he wouldn't do it. He also took me off his Friends list on Yahoo, so I returned the favor. As soon as he got horny and wanted me, he was contacting me on IM and using his celphone to do it.

Yeah, right, Joe. Try contacting me of your own accord when you're NOT horny.

I shall avoid him and play the head games he so hates.

What a rat bastard.

Further Thought on Gay Marriage

02.29.04 (9:29 am) [edit]

I just had another thought concerning gay marriage. I don't mean to beat this topic into the ground, but it's an interesting take on the issue. I'll keep it brief. Here's my thought:

The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads thus:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OK so pay attention to that part that says "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Now, I am a Unitarian Universalist. UUs, as part of their religious practices, choose to perform same-sex union ceremonies, call it marriage, call it unions, call it what you will.

To pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman is to abridge the free exercise of at least one religion that does not believe that gay marriages are sinful. Therefore, such an Amendment would violate the First Amendment itself.

And as far as any state passing any law that outlaws gay marriage, that would also be contrary to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which reads thus:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Think on it.

I Saw The Passion Tonight

02.26.04 (8:04 pm) [edit]

So I went and saw "The Passion" tonight.

Good movie...but...

...you can REALLY TELL that Mel is Catholic.

I mean, no Protestant would have made a film like this, where the suffering and beatings and blood and graphic violence and whatnot were SO drawn out!

I kept sitting there, thinking to myself, "All RIGHT Mel, all RIGHT, we get the point already!"

And he'd drag it out some more.

There were some nice touches in the movie, I have to admit. Using a language other than English was cool. The dialogue was simple, not really Oscar-winning (although the special effects/CGI/makeup crew deserve an Academy Award for their work), but effective.

Another nice touch was Pilate's wife offering fresh cloths to Mary, because she too felt the suffering and pain.

Women are like that.

But then, after he dragged and dragged and dragged on the suffering and pain and beatings and blood and gore and violence and more blood and more suffering and more of everything - he spent maybe 3 minutes on the Resurrection at the end, no mention of appearing to Mary who then ran to the other disciples, and that was that.

Sort of anticlimactic, I must admit.

The cinematography was good.

But there were some brief moments I thought were rather pointless. Like the ox carcass in the desert, from which Judas took the rope to hang himself. Gratuitous gore. Not necessary. That to me would have been put in for shock value only. Did nothing to support the story itself.

I thought he also went a little far with the lashings. I don't recall seeing anything in the Scriptures about them turning him over and lashing the front of him 39 times as well as his back. At that point I thought, "OK, this is a bit of a stretch."

Not that the Roman soldiers were not barbarians. They were. All the known world was Roman territory, so they figured they were 10 feet tall and bulletproof. Sure.

Bear in mind that I lived with a makeup man for several years and I know what that film blood is made of. You can buy the ingredients in the grocery store and make your own stage blood.

It's Karo syrup and red food coloring.

Yes, he dragged it out terribly, I thought. Ridiculously so. Oh, even other ex-Catholics I know have mentioned that Catholicism has this almost pathological fixation on suffering and graphic depictions of the crucifixion and all that. Some of the goriest religious art I have ever seen in my life comes from the Catholic church. I grew up Protestant, so everything becomes very abstract when you're Protestant. You don't generally see big crucifixes in Protestant churches. Just crosses. You don't see the Pieta or any equivalent thereof; Mary becomes a nonentity most of the time.

But that said, I have to admit that I had something of a mystical insight while watching the movie, and after I came out of it.

It has to do with the idea that we are all Christ - we are all the Roman soldiers - we are all the disciples who scattered to the four winds when Jesus was taken - we are all mother Mary mourning our son - we are all every person in that story. And the events there play out in our lives every single day, in every interaction we have with someone else. Or even with our own demons and angels.

And a lot of people have made accusations at the movie and Mel for being anti-Semitic, because of the way he depicted the sentencing for Jesus.

Doesn't anyone remember "Jesus of Nazareth" that movie from the 1970s or so, with Robert Powell as Jesus? The same scene was in it - "Whom shall I release to you? Barabbas or Jesus?" And once again, the Jews called for the release of Barabbas. Does that make Franco Zefferelli anti-Semitic too? I think not. I never got that impression from that movie (and I have to admit it remains my favorite of any Jesus related movie I've ever seen).

No, instead I think this picture showed in a way that no one but Jesus was responsible for his own death. He rode the wave - he used the system that was available to him at that time and place to carry out his message. Finger pointing at either the Jews or the Romans isn't the point. He could have got out of it, and he did not. As I understand it, Jesus in a human body and with a human mind had free will. This is a question I'd had for a long time - since Jesus was said to be of the same substance as God, does that mean he knew what would happen and therefore was not afraid and also could not have exercised free will and got out of it?

No...he had free will. As evidenced by his prayer in the garden at Gethsemane. He said, "IF it be your will, Lord, let this cup pass from me." But if not, he would submit.

So he chose death himself. He was responsible for it, ultimately.

He chose it willingly. He really believed he was giving his life as a gift. No one was taking it from him. And the sacrifice was perfect.

There's a very personal, mystical way of responding to the Passion, but words are very inadequate to explain it. At the moment I'm pretty tired, but maybe another day I'll give it a try.

Holy Batshit Batman!

02.24.04 (7:20 pm) [edit]

I really AM a whore!!!! Check out this score on this kinky test I just took:

Congratulations!
Your kinky sex score was 565!

Here is the chart so that you can see how you are rated:

Under 100 You need to lighten up and live a little!
100 to 200 You have an average sex drive in need of kink.
201 to 300 You have sweet hints of a kinky nature.
300 to 400 You are definitely a kinky player.
400 to 500 You are a major league kinkster!
500 or more Wow! You're too kinky for most!!!
600 or more SUPER FREAK ALERT! You da BOMB!

Article on Women & Friendship

02.24.04 (6:17 pm) [edit]

A landmark UCLA study suggests friendships between women are special. They shape who we are and who we are yet to be.

They soothe our tumultuous inner world, fill the emotional gaps in our marriage, and help us remember who we really are. By the way, they may do even more. Scientists now suspect that hanging out with our friends can actually counteract the kind of stomach-quivering stress most of us experience on a daily basis.

A landmark UCLA study suggests that women respond to stress with a cascade of brain chemicals that cause us to make and maintain friendships with other women. It's a stunning find that has turned five decades of stress research---most of it on men---upside down. Until this study was published, scientists generally believed that when people experience stress, they trigger a hormonal cascade that revs the body to either stand and fight or flee as fast as possible, explains Laura Cousin Klein, Ph.D., now an Assistant Professor of Biobehavioral Health at Penn State University and one of the study's authors. It's an ancient survival mechanism left over from the time we were chased across the planet by saber-toothed tigers. Now the researchers suspect that women have a larger behavioral repertoire than just fight or flight; in fact, says Dr. Klein, it seems that when the hormone oxytocin is release as part of the stress responses in a woman, it buffers the fight or flight response and encourages her to tend children and gather with other women instead. When she actually engages in this tending or befriending, studies suggest that more oxytocin is released, which further counters stress and produces a calming effect.

This calming response does not occur in men, says Dr. Klein, because testosterone---which men produce in high levels when they're under stress---seems to reduce the effects of oxytocin. Estrogen; she adds, seems to enhance it. The discovery that women respond to stress differently than men was made in a classic "aha" moment shared by two women scientists who were talking one day in a lab at UCLA. There was this joke that when the women who worked in the lab were stressed, they came in, cleaned the lab, had coffee, and bonded, says Dr. Klein. "When the men were stressed, they holed up somewhere on their own. I commented one day to fellow researcher Shelley Taylor that nearly 90% of the stress research is on males. I showed her the data from my lab, and the two of us knew instantly that we were onto something." The women cleared their schedules and started meeting with one scientist after another from various research specialties. Very quickly, Drs. Klein and Taylor discovered that by not including women in stress research, scientists had made a huge mistake: The fact that women respond to stress differently than men has significant implications for our health. It may take some time for new studies to reveal all the ways that oxytocin encourages us to care for children and hang out with other women, but the "tend and befriend" notion developed by Drs. Klein and Taylor may explain why women consistently outlive men. Study after study has found that social ties reduce our risk of disease by lowering blood pressure, heart rate, and cholesterol. There's no doubt, says Dr. Klein, that friends are helping us live longer. In one study, for example, researchers found that people who had no friends increased their risk of death over a 6-month period. In another study, those who had the most friends over a 9-year period cut their risk of death by more than 60%.

Friends are also helping us live better. The famed Nurses' Health Study from Harvard Medical School found that the more friends women had, the less likely they were to develop physical impairments as they aged, and the more likely they were to be leading a joyful life. In fact, the results were so significant, the researchers concluded, that not having close friends or confidants was as detrimental to your health as smoking or carrying extra weight! And that's not all! When the researchers looked at how well the women functioned after the death of their spouse, they found that even in the face of this biggest stressor of all, those women who had a close friend and confidante were more likely to survive the experience without any new physical impairments or permanent loss of vitality. Those without friends were not always so fortunate. Yet if friends counter the stress that seems to swallow up so much of our life these days, if they keep us healthy and even add years to our life, why is it so hard to find time to be with them? That's a question that also troubles researcher Ruthellen Josselson, Ph.D., co-author of Best Friends: The Pleasures and Perils of Girls' and Women's Friendships (Three Rivers Press,1998). Every time we get overly busy with work and family, the first thing we do is let go of friendships with other women, explains Dr. Josselson. We push them right to the back burner. That's really a mistake because women are such a source of strength to each other. We nurture one another. And we need to have unpressured space in which we can do the special kind of talk that women do when they're with other women. It's a very healing experience.

Hmmmmm. I can easily believe this. Too bad I have a problem bonding with other women. I wish I could. But I often feel threatened by other women - they are competition for the attention of my man. And according to the beauty standard set by this culture I live in, I, as a morbidly obese woman, come up very short in the beauty category. Oh, I suppose I have a pretty enough face and smile, and very nice and unusual eyes (my eyes are the color of tiger's eye, not blue as most redheads' eyes are - got it from my dad, who has dark eyes), and as a strawberry redhead I have a very unusual hair color that cannot - repeat, cannot - be accurately reproduced from a bottle, but that means little to people. Because I am 5' tall and nearly 250 pounds, that's all people see and that's the first thing they categorize me as in their minds. "She's a fat/large woman." Anyone who is a woman of real size is aware that this is the way the world sees us and categorizes us first. They don't look at the hair color first and say, "My goodness, what gorgeous hair!" Oh, that used to happen to me all the time because my hair is such an unusual shade. When it was very long, people would stop me in church, on the street, in the stores, in school, and tell me I had incredible hair. People used to ask me what color I used. I told them this was the work of Mother Nature, not a bottle. It was sometimes a struggle to get people to believe me, particularly in high school.

But since I started putting on weight, the question I got asked with more frequency was, "When are you due?"

I ran into this woman I went to college with, her name is Caroline, and she hadn't seen me for a very long time. I was just starting to put weight on, and most of it had gone to the area of my belly right over the uterus. And she was very happy to see me, yes, and she enthused, "When are you due?" I had to tell her I'm not pregnant. Never been pregnant. She, of course, was mortified, and because I know her, I knew it was an honest mistake and she wasn't intending to be insulting.

But as a large woman, I do find myself hesitating to even attempt to bond with female friends. I try not to get too close to them at all, in fact, even though there are people (from church, for example) who would probably happily bond with me and probably actually like me a lot. They seem to miss me when I have missed a few services here and there.

Another thing that keeps me from bonding with women is my bisexuality. I am not actually attracted to most women I see, and I do have one woman in my life with whom I have that kind of relationship and therefore don't really feel the need to look elsewhere, but somehow I feel this: if it got out I was bi, and I went to hug someone in greeting, they might be offended. They might think that the hug had more than just friendly overtones. They might think, in fact, that I was attempting to hit on them or at least was getting a sexual thrill from hugging them.

Which simply isn't the case at all, but since only I occupy my brain and no one else does, do you really think anyone would believe me if I just said, "No, that isn't the case?" Highly unlikely.

Yes, sometimes I fervently wish I had a few close female friends I could bond with. My lady in PA, she whom I've known since high school and do have something closer than friendship with, is of course one of the best I have. But she's not here in FL with me. I need friends here in FL. Badly.

Sometimes I also wonder if other women will find me just generally too weird to hang around with because I tend to be very intellectual, and this is not a trait that is exactly encouraged in women in this culture. Just this morning at breakfast, Joe and I were discussing world history, especially as it related to the old Ottoman Empire and how all that tied in to what was going on in the Middle East right now. Lots of women wouldn't really care about that kind of thing...but would rather go shopping for new clothes (and of course, the size thing comes in there again, and...you can imagine my lack of enthusiasm for fashion as a result). Or redecorating the house. Or cooking, something I have no patience for. When I'm hungry, I want it NOW. All hail the advent of the microwave!

So I'm not exactly posessed of "girly" qualities. I have no children, and no particular urge to have any. That is a HUGE strike against me; you should have SEEN the look on Carmen's face when I told her I had no wish to have babies. You would have thought I'd sprouted another head. I have little urge to decorate my home and "nest." I do a minimum of that and I'm happy with it. I don't like to shop, especially for clothes, because of my size. I have no patience for cooking, and prefer to just zap something in the microwave and eat it. Probably not the most nutritious lifestyle, but there you have it.

I'm a scholar. I'm also drawn to the spiritual life and asking the Big Questions about life. I like figuring out what makes people tick. Not for nothing was I studying to be a shrink at one point in my life. I sniff things out. Enquiring minds want to know!

Are there any women out there I CAN bond with...?

More On Gay Marriage

02.24.04 (6:11 pm) [edit]

I actually may end up posting two entries about this. This first one here is going to be a slightly different take on the issue; here I will respond to one gay man's directive to SHUT THE FUCK UP about gay marriage, no matter WHAT side of the issue you're on.

His problem is, he seems to think that most people who are out there campaigning either for or against gay marriage have forgotten one key thing: we are talking about people here. It's not an excuse just to have another cause, another banner to carry regardless of whose side you're on. He made a comment in his entry (on another site) that if you haven't sat down with a gay person and talked to him or her about the issue, then you need to put a sock in it immediately.

Well, I have kind of an equally strong response.

He's not known to be a particularly political animal, as I am, and he wears that as a kind of badge of pride. Which is ironic; so far as I remember he's not one to buy goodies with rainbows and PRIDE and whatnot all over it. Anyway, it's almost like he himself is doing a one-upmanship game of his own, "Look at how much more enlightened and humane I am than either party about this issue! I'm going to NOT turn it political! I'm going to turn the focus back on the people."

Well, first of all, even having that much of a reaction to it only goes to show just how bound he is to the whole political scene. He's bound to it by his disgust, whether he wants to admit it or not. It has pushed a button in him; it has made him react. He gave his power away to it by reacting as angrily as he did.

And believe me, his entry was quite angry. I'm not even close to adequately describing how angry he was.

Beyond that, I would also say this: I think HE is the one who needs to shut the fuck up. Whatever their motivation, at least some people are getting off their South Nodes and DOING something about it. Lots of people complain about the weather, after all - how many people DO anything about it? Would he rather we just sat on our asses and just TALKED about it, and not put our money where our mouth is - which happens to mean the political arena, because this is what we have to work with?

And if he's going to be so ungrateful for what people are trying to do, to ensure that his rights, along with his partner's should they ever marry, are protected - then let him not partake of it.

Let him not be able to visit his beloved in the hospital if ever he is injured in a car wreck and is on life support.

Let him not be able to get housing because he's gay and lives with a man.

Let him not be able to adopt children someday with his partner.

Let him not be able to inheret sentimentally valuble property in the event of the death of his partner and vice versa.

If he's going to play this game of sour grapes, because he's not liking the way people are doing things, then he can do either or both of these:

1: Get out there and do it his own damn self if he doesn't like the way we political wolves are (which he's NEVER done, and I say if everyone had an attitude like his we'd still be living in the Stone Age)

2: Refuse to partake of the benefits of the law should it ever be passed.

At least SOME people are out there willing to act for change. We're not sitting back and bitching and complaining and being unwilling to get off our asses and do SOMETHING, one way or another.

God, ever since he became that Satanist girl's bitch, he's been a whiny spoiled brat.

Just had to put that out there. Meanwhile, I am generally in favor of gay marriage - but now that I've seen this dude get all bent out of shape and whine and bitch and complain that none of the rest of us are doing it right, I'm starting to wonder if I should change my position just to make sure that he NEVER gets the rights he seems to want only if we do it HIS WAY.

On Gay Marriage, etc

02.23.04 (5:09 pm) [edit]

OK, I thought I should offer my take on the gay marriage thing. As well as some thoughts I had about racism, heterosexism, spirituality and pretty much anything that comes into my head. It may be a slightly disjointed entry, but here goes nothing.

First of all, I am heartily in favor of gay marriage and I do not believe for a New York minute that marriage should be defined as the union of one man with one woman. That to me is a very strongly heterosexist attitude to take (more on what heterosexism is later in this essay). I think I'd say that even if I was Christian (which I currently am not) because of one moment in the Scriptures.

It was the moment when Jesus was giving a teaching in someone's house, and someone walked up to him and said, "Rabbi, your mother and brothers are waiting outside to see you, talk to you."

And Jesus responded, "Who are my mother and brothers?" Indicating the people sitting round him listening to his teachings, he said, "These are my mother and brothers."

In other words, sometimes the biological family unit just doesn't cut it. Sometimes the social standard or norm just isn't going to work. I know exactly how the rabbi felt; I do not feel at home with my own family, because they refuse to accept me for what I am and they are constantly trying to change me and make me be something else, something different. While I am bisexual, I am not specifically referring to that. Instead, what I personally am talking about is my interest in alternative spirituality. I have traversed many different paths, including Wicca, through the years, and it's not easy for my family to accept.

I'm sure there are gay and lesbian people who know the pain of not being able to rely on or trust one's own biological family for support, and not being able to really share all of who they are with the people they love.

Has anyone EVER thought of that?

Apparently not. Until now.

At any rate, the very word "marriage" is cognizant with the words "martial" and "Mars" and at its root seems to bespeak of conflict resolution. Indeed, in the ancient world one of the duties of the god Mars was overseeing contracts and strategic unions; even today neckties and signatures and proposals are as much a part of conflict resolution as weapons and bloodshed and fighting ever were. Think of it for a moment.

And the same can be said of the uniting of two people into a binding contract that safeguards the rights and properties of the two people entering into said contract. That to me is marriage. It is not something dependent upon the gender of the people involved; hell, even corporate mergers have been described as "marriages" and rightly so. That's what they are. A contractural resolution between two parties. Sounds a little cold and clinical, but technically correct if one realizes what is at the root of the word. So, a fig for the "marriage was designed to be between a man and a woman only" argument; it most certainly was not, and many cultures have existed that did not view marriage in the way many people seem to want it today. Who is more right? On what basis do we decide this? Something objective and logical, or something subjective and irrational?

Now, what is this "heterosexism" I was talking about earlier? Here is a definition I snagged from a website, but the first part will deal with the word "homophobia" so bear with me here:

Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as "aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture" and "behavior or an act based on this aversion." Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality.

Around the same time, heterosexism began to be used as a term analogous to sexism and racism, describing an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community (Herek, 1990). Using the term heterosexism highlights the parallels between antigay sentiment and other forms of prejudice, such as racism, antisemitism, and sexism. Like institutional racism and sexism, heterosexism pervades societal customs and institutions. It operates through a dual process of invisibility and attack. Homosexuality usually remains culturally invisible; when people who engage in homosexual behavior or who are identified as homosexual become visible, they are subject to attack by society.

Examples of heterosexism in the United States include the continuing ban against lesbian and gay military personnel; widespread lack of legal protection from antigay discrimination in employment, housing, and services; hostility to lesbian and gay committed relationships, recently dramatized by passage of federal and state laws against same-gender marriage; and the existence of sodomy laws in more than one-third of the states.

Although usage of the two words has not been uniform, homophobia has typically been employed to describe individual antigay attitudes and behaviors whereas heterosexism has referred to societal-level ideologies and patterns of institutionalized oppression of non-heterosexual people.

To see the entire website, go =http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...here.

OK that said, I have to say that most people who wish to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman are being very heterosexist - they believe they have the "one size fits all" answer and they are determined to force it upon all people regardless of whether it actually applies to them or not. Square pegs and round holes, folks. I also believe they are being what I will call "monogamist" which I don't believe is a word but also assumes that the ideal romantic partnership is monogamous - only ONE partner. No others. This also doesn't necessarily work for all people; shall those who are in loving and committed multiple partnerships also be denied the right to call what they have a "marriage" - and to take it one step further, are they not a "family?"

Once again, the question is, who is going to set these definitions? And on what basis? Something illogical and irrational and completely subjective, such as a religious teaching from a path that not everyone follows? Where's the logic in that?

It also occured to me, as I was driving home from work today, that heterosexism and racism and classism and ageism and all of what John Lennon used to call "the ism brothers" are all varying sides of the same coin. It's all about dividing people up into little categories, then using some subjective criteria to determine which people are better and more deserving than the others. To me, this whole issue over gay marriage sort of hails back to the McCarthy era: "Are you a communist? Have you ever been part of a communist organization?" It really is almost shading in the direction of the most ridiculous and time-wasting witch hunts I've ever seen. Consider what this country COULD be doing with its time and tax dollars if we weren't going round and round about the gay marriage issue. As a taxpayer myself, I have to say this is the biggest waste of MY money I've ever seen.

And it occurs to me that when one is supposedly serving the Spirit, there's no room for "the ism brothers." Once again, even though I am not Christian I will hearken back to one line in Galatians that I think sends a very strong message to this effect: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Yes, yes, I know people are going to be screaming at me for taking Scripture out of context, but I'm only doing the same thing other Chrisitans do. Oh yes, they do it all the time. So we're square on that one, get over it, move on. This verse TO ME bespeaks of that transcendent state one arrives at when walking in faith. Distinctions become "lower consciousness." It is learning to see people for the Spirit within them, rather than their hair color or the amount of money they make or how they dress or whatever. Should be obvious, but to some people perhaps it isn't.

If we believe it is wrong to judge someone by the color of their skin, then let it also be wrong to judge someone by whom they love and decide to share their life with. Both are equally shallow and superficial.

Now, I wished to respond to something here. There is a concern that has been brought up: "If they got married and say they adopted a kid then that kid would be growing up in a gay enviorment and they would probably think its alright and become gay too."

Yes, they just might think it's OK to be gay! Whoa, what a concept! OK can the sarcasm, missy. The point is, so what if they did? Let's turn this back onto itself and say, exactly where did those gay parents come from? Straight parents! So does that mean that all straight people produce straight kids? No. Therefore, will all gay couples, in raising a child, turn out a gay child? Not necessarily. I happen to be personally acquainted with gay people who have children, and in all seriousness those are the most well-adjusted kids I've ever seen in my life. Now me, I grew up with hetero parents, and I was routinely abused and molested by my drunken stepfather.

I think I should put this in red and bold text: Being straight is no guarantee of being a better parent. My stepfather is living proof of that.

So to me, there is no real reason to deny gay people the right to marry - and indeed, doing so is basically on level with being a racist. It's arbitrary discrimination, and you'd think that in America of 2004 we'd have got over our puritanical attitudes already.

But I guess not.

Yikes

02.22.04 (2:36 pm) [edit]

I cannot believe what I'm seeing on this board I signed up for. It's a Pagan board, and some of the nonsense I see all over the place is just too weird for words.

I'll give some examples.

Foxygirl posted this: im a wiccan but some one asked me "whats the point i mean if you dont cast spells for personal gain and because you dont beleive in a devil so you dont do them to fight demons then what do you do them for???"i felt so dumb cuz i couldnt answer it!!!!

OK first of all, why is she so clueless about what it means to be Wiccan? This to me is the BIGGEST SIGN of a fashion Wiccan or a "Playgan." She couldn't figure out ON HER OWN that the whole point of being Wiccan is to practice a specific religion first and foremost?

Here is how the rest of that thread went:
Io99 didn't seem to have a very good grasp of what Foxygirl was asking, because his/her post went like this: oh i know this situation very well ...
when i was asked about my belief, they awaited of me a short answer, but this is just not possible for me
the most people know that christians believe to the christian god
but the most of them have no idea to what pagans believe
it's quiete easy to say "i'm christian"- surely everyone knows what it's meaning
but to explain to what an only pagan believes is quiete difficult - everyone of us believes to something else
an advice of mine: write down what you believe, to think about your religious conception of the world :wink:
then it's easier to explain what you believe, but this always takes time ...

Foxygirl had to reply thus: ok but what do i say about the whole spell thing??

She's still lost at this point!

KnightGlow brought us this bulletin from the department of the obvious: I don't think being Wiccan or Pagan is just about spells. I think there is more to it then spells. I would return that question with a similar question. Ask them why they say prayers. To me, I only do a spell when I need help with something and I can't do it on my own. I think of them as a helping too. For example, say I wanted to lose weight. I wouldn't do a spell to lose weight and then go eat a bag of chips. Instead I would help the spell out by working out and watching what I eat. Now that is just me. I'm sure there are others who think differently.

"I don't think being Wiccan or Pagan is just about spells." The fact that he even had to say this indicates that there is far too much focus on the magic and a dearth of actual RELIGIOUS DEVOTION going on in the Pagan and Wiccan worlds. I'd even go so far as to say that most of it is the Wiccans who have no clue who they are worshiping and have not bothered to form any kind of relationship with any deity beyond the vague fuzzy-bunny fluffy deities they call God and Goddess and who are always pretty and dreamy and loving and gentle and kind and all that.

Horsehockey. It's like I told Joe not too long ago - I was prepared to do a Hela and dispose of EVERYTHING in my life that pertained to him, and pretend the last 6 years didn't exist. That's one tiny example of developing a relationship with a deity and inviting that deity's energy into my own personal universe.

Anyway, the thread continued with Yoda258's response: I'm new to all this, but I know for myself, I was raised Roman Catholic. So in a way, if I listed what I really believe in it is a mixture of multiple religions.

I think this happens for a lot of people, but they either think they should have a simple answer to the question or its just because that's what they were taught. For a lot of beliefs, called by a different name it fits into a different religion, i.e. if I said I believe in God (as far as the Catholic definition), if I called him/her Buddha, couldn't it be the same thing?

And anyway, why should it matter? As long as someone tries to be a "good" person then that should be enough of an answer. Sorry to kind of quote the bible, but judge not else thee be judged.

Apparently Yoda didn't have much of a clue as to what Foxygirl's question was. She was asking about how to respond to a query directed at her about spells. Do people even comprehend what they read any more? Or are these people so completely drowned in ego that they have their answers worked out before they've even understood the subject of the original post? Noobs, I swear! I don't think I was quite this clueless even when I started!!

Omareduardo13 responded: When people ask you what's the point you might tell them what's wicca really about. Wicca is about your place in the world. Wicca is about your personal development, spiritually. And it use spells and rituals for that, for the spiritual development

That's about the best one I've seen yet. The rest has been utter fluff bunny psychobabble, no substance at all. Granted, this response isn't great, and could use some work, and some of it still smacks of someone who wants to use big words to sound impressive, but he's a little closer to the point than anyone else has been without restating the obvious.

Goldenfire cheesed out: Some thoughtful replies, and wonderful advice.

While me and mine are not fully out of the broom closet, I have had many questions when I abstain from religious discussions or blithly go about my business on Christian holidays.

After a great deal of thought, I did journal what my personal beliefs were, put them in my Book of Shadows and came up with the short answer for those moments.

"I am a Wiccan, a child of the universe and choose to work in harmony with the Earth and all her inhabitants in Love and good will. In doing so I remember the Old ways and offer them to those who wish to hear. As prayer is in your practices, spell craft is mine; in doing so I give thanks, ask for assistance and seek to help others while attempting to harm none."

Hope it give you some ideas.

That quote that Goldenfire posted, the "I am a Wiccan..." is something I've seen before, on many websites. I don't believe for a red hot minute she wrote that herself. Somehow I have the impression that she doesn't understand a word of it.

Wiccan Warrior (dear Gods what a fluffy name) offered this: As a Wiccan,that's out of the closet,glad that hurdle is behind me,i to am a child of the universe,i connect with the things that go with that and feel good about it. If somebody ask me a question about the craft and you don't know the answer,don't sweat it always answer truthly and i don't but i can point you in the right direction to find your answer.Wicca is not all about spells it is also about enlightenment.

"I am a child of the universe..." So who isn't?
"I connect with the things that go with that..." And that would be what?
At least he figured out that Wicca isn't all about spells.

Ember7401 wrote: I feel that an expliantion bout being wiccan is Belief. Those who know bout Wicca know that its not all bout magic, spells and personal gain. Its also bout believing in the God and Goddess and our relationship with them and with nature.
I know that its hard to describe but hopefully that helps

It shouldn't be hard to describe. It's right there! But Ember seems to have got it. Relationship with Deity. How hard is that? Why couldn't our fluffy heroine Foxygirl figure that out? Because she doesn't want to develop a relationship with Deity. She just wants to be cool and Wiccan and rebellious.

ShadowBlade thought of this, and got a little long-winded about it: When it comes to explaining ones belief; although it can only be worded in their own way. Because it is impossible too truly generalize Wicca, or paganism. Except to say that we as a religious community choose an earth based connective way. Involving either a combination of god/�s goddess/�s. be it singular or in a varied personal selection. As to our own beliefs, or the beliefs of our chosen path. Even with this our core choice of tolerance to all beliefs. Including variances of what is called and understood to be Wiccan or pagan.

With this it is still a common practice to either recite a portion of the rede. Or try to give a blanket answer as to why we do as we do. This doesn�t work it either too often leaves holes that cause others. To think we are insincere or unstable in our beliefs. I agree that a person should write down what they believe and why so they may create their own definition. Some say that casting either for self-gain or any other self-indulging purpose is just plain wrong. While others respond this is foolish basically saying why not. I personally think that greed or pride lead to hard falls. Has history in general has shown us, but then again is casting for another. So that they speak highly of the work not self-gain. another way to feed the ego so would it not be better to follow a simple standing. that we should give what we have and take no more then we need. be it from the earth or the strength of the universe. also returning what we have to them both .although this is kind of preachy I only wish to inspire thought in my brothers and sisters .

Really wordy for a Pisces. But that last statement was all Pisces - "I only wish to inspire." But he still didn't address the issue of questions about spells. His answer is lovely, but doesn't answer the actual question that was asked.

Cernnunos also cheesed out: "Witch says not so much about how we do what we do as it does about the fire inside."

Oh please. Do you even know what that means?

Uuuuggg. It went on like this for two pages before people finally got over their ego tripping and pretty sounding words that they didn't understand the meaning of, and finally addressed this poor noob's issue. And all because they couldn't shut their overactive brains up enough to LISTEN to her question. They'd pretty much formulated their answers almost before they were done reading the post, it's clear to me.

This is a very disturbing trend I've noticed in the Wiccan world lately. People need to slow down. Not be so quick to answer a question like this with a prefabricated plastic answer (which is usually some variation on "harm none" and "I am a child of the Goddess" and that's where it ends).

Just A Test

02.22.04 (12:55 pm) [edit]

I'm just testing this new blog...I've never seen this site before so I thought I'd give it a try