tsujigiri

The editorial comments of Chris and James, covering the news, science, religion, politics and culture.

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." -Douglas Adams

Saturday, December 14, 2002

Gruss Gott, mein friends! How are every person tonight? Bitte, my hope is for you to join me fur ein kleine nachtkomputation. We shall have bier und pretzels und the soothing tones of Beethoven from my midi sequenzer while we bathe in glowing light of streaming bits. Let us float mystically by candelight to the banks of babbling IP packets, where daemons frolic and servers await our requests in the foggy bottom of that nether-kernel which transcends time. Oh what maxims and modalities we might explore as we tap the digital artery which flows like the Rhine around und through all things. Would you care for a danish? Now let us, through our fingers, cleave unto our machines and become as one. One mind, one thought, all joined by the binary seance of ethernet; we become zeitgeist tonight! As we peer into this machine to find unity with every transistor -- every electron -- so shall we come to know the thing in itself.

Ein Kleine Nachtkomputation

More on Lott: I think his loose affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens is far more troubling than his comments on Strom Thurmond. His statements are just too general to be pinned down as racist. Maybe he was passionate about some other aspect of Thurmond's platform which overshadow issues of race in Lott's mind. I think everything he's done, while looking suspicious, can be given a non-racist interpretation. He certainly isn't sensitive to minority interests.

Perhaps the only explanation of his association with the CCC is that he didn't know all the details about that organization. And one could argue that a person in his position should make it his business to know. Maybe his stance on Bob Jones university was genuinely motivated by a deeply held principle separation of church and state.

I won't be sorry to see him go, I just think that the label "racist" is too lightly tossed around without adequate cause. And when someone gets branded a racist, it sticks. There is no possible defence. Once someone calls you that, that's what you are. There's not even much room for rehabilitation unless you do something truly saintly. Though in many cases it seems as though reformed racists get much more respect than people who insist that they never were racist.

The claims made against Lott have to do with small statements made decades apart, and with policy issues that are less than a drop-in-the-bucket of race issues. Call him a fallen arch-conservative, and good riddance if he goes, but I say give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their innermost attitudes.

Pravda brings us the latest in news and the wildest conjecture concerning rape charges filed against George W. Bush in Texas. The article didn't really help me understand what's going on, but it did have this line: "Who knows, probably, she is one of thousands of American women, who perform sexual favors to high-ranking politicians of America." Have they seen the high-ranking politicians of America? Can anyone honestly imagine them having sex? Try picturing Collin Powell with a hooker. Round hole, square peg.

Friday, December 13, 2002

Mormons made Fark again today, this time the Mormon Church owned KSL TV News video feed in Salt Lake was accidentally replaced with topless women. Apparently the cable company accidentally switched the video from KSL with an HBO show, but viewers could still hear the audio portion of the newscast. No sign of this in the Utah news, that I could see.

Trent Lott's comments ("If the other states had followed our lead [in electing Strom Thurmond, a segregationist, as President in 1948] then we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years") seem to me like a failure at thinking on his feet. The statement, while it raises a flag of curiosity, is too general to be interpretted as anti-civil rights, segregationist, or racist. He was trying to flatter the old man. We all say things that we would disagree with after some reflection. It reminds me of something I saw on CNN during the election coverage a few weeks ago. One of the anchors had accidentally referred to a governor as "senator such-and-such." The anchor was quite embarrassed and apologized repeatedly. After the brief interview was over, the anchors joked about it momentarily, and another anchor said, "It happens to everyone sometimes." The nervous anchor replied, "Oh, sure, but I still feel like I want to shoot myself in the head," and made the gesture of shooting himself in the head. There was an awkward pause among the anchors. I knew that the last remark, with gesture, had turned his slip of the tongue into a career threatening mistake. I haven't seen that guy again. Surely the tongue is the mightiest suicide machine of all.

Thursday, December 12, 2002

According to CNN, there is new evidence that "Iran, a member of the axis of evil, is building large secret nuclear facilities..." So "membership" in the "axis of evil" is now the cheif means of identifying "Iran." It's no longer "that country next to Iraq," or "that country that we were friendly with until an Islamic cultural revolution which unseated our friendly puppet Shaw from power, which worried us so much that we gave Iraq money and weapons to go fight them," and it isn't even "Iran of Iran-Contra fame." I think it would help their image a lot if they cancelled their "axis of evil" membership. But you can't blame them too much for joining. The "ten scuds for a penny" introductory membership offer can be quite tempting.

Mormons have made the "wierd" category on Fark.com again, with the article "Mormons Again Promise to Stop Baptising Dead Jews". According to the article, Anne Frank, Genghis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler and Buddha are among the bejillions of names that Mormons have baptised for the dead. And a representative of a Jewish group says that "the Mormons are not the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved."

That having been said... I still find it a little confusing why some religious groups are offended when Mormons do proxy Baptisms for dead people. I think it's stupid as much as anyone, but the complaints made by Jewish, Catholic, and other groups, seem to be spiritual in nature. That the ritual somehow dishonors the dead, or is sacreligious in the context of the deceased person's religion. But proxy Baptisms are a central part of the Mormon religion. It seems to me that by demanding Mormons not baptise this or that dead person, they are in fact demanding that Mormons be insincere in their faith. As a total outsider to religion, I see proxy baptisms as no different than prayer. If I was offended by a name being used in one ritual, I should be just as offended by that name being used in a different ritual. So should Mormons also stop praying for Jews? My point is that the only way I can be upset about a ritual practiced by a different religion is if I am artificially relating it to something in my own religion. I can't demand that someone stop exercising their own faith simply because it contradicts mine.

Wednesday, December 11, 2002

As long as I'm posting photos, here's a couple from Gilgal gardens last year:

The Joseph Smith Sphinx Man with brick pants

Sorry if all the photos are clogging up anybody's bandwidth. Let me know if they do and I'll replace them with smaller links.

ONE YEAR AGO in December I was in Salt Lake. I took these pictures:

snow downtown spooky temple Mary Tree Shrine at Mary Tree My Old House Sunny campus

This year I'm about a thousand miles north of Salt Lake. Its warmer and there isn't much snow. I strangely miss my slummy old apartment. Kitchen fires, slanted floor and all. I was sad this summer to see that the Mary tree had been defaced. I don't believe in shamelessly robbing the simple minded of the harmless symbols from which they take comfort. And Salt Lake has been robbed of a valuable camp artifact. Various pieces in Gilgal gardens were also defaced. Very sad. At least the man with the brick pants is still in good condition. I miss having odd religious relics to puzzle over. And I miss having those spooky downtown cult buildings to shudder at.

White and Delightsome: the Mormon Church appears to be gearing up for a new round of ex-communications for intellectuals. James sent me this link which tells all about it. One researcher has done work in genetics to verify common lineage between Native Americans and native Siberians (and thus they aren't the descendents of Jews who came to the Americas in submarines thousands of years ago, as suggested by the Book of Mormon). He's gotta go. The article also says, "Elder Boyd Packer, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, declared feminists, homosexuals and "so-called intellectuals" dangers to the church. A series of excommunications followed, though high-profile cases have waned."

In other news, something less white and delightsome is going on with my eye... I spent three hours in the clinic today. They didn't know what it was. They said wait until tomorrow and see if it changes into something they recognise. Here's a picture of it:

My eye with blob

It stings and its wierd. They gave me a vision test. I read a line, "Z B X 4..." The nurse giggled, and I corrected myself: "ZED B X 4..."

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

I got this link from fark. Apparently a guy in Trinidad told a woman he was psychic and that she would die if she didn't perform certain "rituals" with him, such as sleeping with him. The article says "Although the sex act was consensual, Dubay was charged with rape because of his fraudulent story." This sounds like a can of worms... I wonder if this is a case of diminished capacity; any woman who would sleep with a man because of his "psychic powers" probably lacks the mental competency needed for consent. On the other hand, if its rape any time a guy lies to get sex... "He said he loved me but he really didn't" could be a prelude to a rape trial. Or perhaps "I only slept with him because he promised me money..."

The fire alarm drove me out of my apartment today, so I grabbed what I could of my life's work, stuffed it into my very large, heavy backpack, and wandered up the street. I haven't yet gone back to see if my building is still there. There were two fire trucks pulling up when I left.

I spent the day today writing in a place called "The Bohemian Cyber-Cafe." The decor is abstract and impressionist paintings and computers. There's a shelf lined with old books, and a collection of CD's dangling from the ceiling. Each CD has a letter on it, and they spell out "Bohemia." I could stay here forever trying to comprehend the particular form of irony that this place embodies.

Supremacist Church Leaving Midwest for Riverton, Wyo. They're moving into a town on an Indian Reservation! They're toast! (This is the World Church of the Creator, run by Matt Hale). "Hale said he has appointed Thomas Kroenke as the group's leader for Wyoming and its world leader of operations. Kroenke has been a caseworker for the Wyoming Corrections Department, according to his Web site and the 2002 state government directory. He says he became a follower of the church after hearing about it from an inmate." Wierd.

Utah Lawmaker Seeks a National Marriage Amendment:

Utah already refuses to recognize same-sex marriages and prohibits homosexual couples from adopting children. But state leaders' efforts to curb gay rights might not stop there. Rep. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, has asked legislative attorneys to draft a resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage. Hatch's resolution would back federal legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, and more than a dozen other members of Congress this year to amend the Constitution.    The so-called Marriage Amendment states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Need I remind everyone that only 19% of Americans voted for Republicans in the last election? Why are the nut-jobs suddenly acting like they were given a mandate to bulldoze American lawbooks with extreme agendas which appeal to the very irritable fundamentalist minority? Why are normal people still complacent while this is happening? Let me guess: "Republicans may be ruining the country on the home-front, but wants a Democrat when there's a war on!?" I think we all know, thanks to the likes of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, just how shabby the Democrats can be as leaders in wartime. And great heros such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon have shown us how the Republicans shine in a crisis...

John Snow, the proposed new treasury secretary, has been succling at the teet of corporate welfare. According to This Small Report, "instead of paying taxes, CSX [Snow's company] supplemented its $934 million in pretax U.S. profits over the four years with a total of $164 million in tax rebate checks from the federal government." Why do profitable companies get tax breaks? I don't even make $20k per year and the fed wants a piece of it. How can I tap into that "tax rebate" racket?

Monday, December 09, 2002

Holy shit: Georgia is trying to give unborn fetuses the right to "trial by jury" before allowing abortions to occur. According to this article, a legislator wants to require women seeking abortions to get death warrants before they can proceed, and he wants the law to classify abortion as an execution. "A mother would have to argue why the child should die and why her rights would take priority over the rights of the child. Once a mother filed for a death warrant, a guardian would be appointed to protect the rights of the unborn child. That guardian would be authorized to demand a jury trial in which the rights of the unborn child would be balanced against the rights of the mother seeking to have the 'execution' performed."

''It's a constitutional protection that we all have that's not being adhered to when it comes to dealing with unborn children,'' Franklin said. ''The first thing we do as state representatives is take an oath of office to support the constitutions of the United States and the state of Georgia. Both ensure no person will be deprived of life or liberty without due process. We just want to make sure that's adhered to. Right now, the unborn child is losing his or her life without a trial.''
Call me crazy, but I thought the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses apply to citizens of the US, and citizenship is conferred upon all those born in the US. Obviously this would violate Roe v Wade (the whole woman's right to privacy thing rules out a public trial), and it probably won't pass in Georgia. I just can't figure out whether I should be surprised by it.

Soap Box: The claim that fetuses and infants have the same "inalienable rights" as adults is completely arbitrary. It can only rest on blatant assertion. That is not insufficient to justify intervention by the state. Any further argument for "rights of the unborn" can only be rooted in religious belief. The state cannot act on the basis of a belief which is strictly religious. There must be some compelling, secular reason for intervention. And for abortion, there is none. For homosexuality, there is none. For preventing divorce and controlling marriage, there is none. Why can't religious people be content to live according to their own moral codes, without having to demand obedience from the rest of us? I seem to recall the New Testament saying that believers should demonstrate the example of a holy life, and act through prayer and peaceful encouragement. Nowhere did I see Jesus say, "condemn the nonbelievers and act to control them through the force of law."

Look what happens when a German chanellor raises taxes, against his campaign promises. The whole country flips out and cuts his head off. When a Bush does that, almost nobody really pisses and moans, and we barely manage to not re-elect him. We're pathetic.

There's a war on. Bush and others who control the national pulpit have said time and again, since the dawn of terrorism long before Sept 11, that the terrorists will win if we allow them to alter our way of life. Yet today, every time I turn around, somebody reminds me that "there's a war on," and we have "extenuating circumstances." We're in a National State of Emergency ever since 9/11/2001, and that justifies curtailing all sorts of basic American liberties and human rights. The Executive branch -- the military -- now has the ability to outlaw associations with people on their "Terrorism Watch List." They can deny the free association of American citizens by proclamation alone. After all, we've got shadows to fight.

Of course I believe there are real enemies in the "war on terrorism," but why does the existence of an enemy have to mean the loss of checks and balances in government, and the loss of liberties in our daily lives? Especially when the enemy is idealogical. We can't sign an armistice with Islamism. This war will never end. Whatever changes we make to fight this war, they cannot be considered temporary.

The whole thing reminds me of "The Brotherhood," the sinister terrorists of Orwell's 1984. Big Brother struggled to hold his society together against the ever-present destabilizing threat of the Brotherhood. Of course as the book nears its end we are led to suspect that Big Brother and The Brotherhood don't even exist; they are just symbols which the government maintains for their functional value. It is valuable to have the people believe in the enemy, to have them fear the enemy and work hard to fight it. Whether the enemy exists, whether it actually has the powers which are claimed of it, is irrelevant.

I don't remember the name of the figurative leader of The Brotherhood. I would look it up, but I lent my copy of 1984 to Eric Gustaveson 8 years ago and he still hasn't given it back.