William Shatner Is A Man-Whore
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
ShatFat's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Thursday, October 8th, 2009 | | 6:00 pm |
Crosses not just for Christians any more? So sayeth Scalia.
Antonin Scalia thinks that we're dumb enough to swallow his assertion that crosses are a universal symbol of the dead, rather than the most popular and most-easily-identifiable symbol of the Christian religion."The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.
"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.
"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."
Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew." Even worse than Scalia's predictable outrage and gasbagging, to me, is some of the response to this story: concern trolling by atheists who think that a Buddhist group trying to erect a stupa next to the cross to honor their dead, a Catholic former Park Ranger who objected to the government's handling of that request, and the ACLU are "making our side [atheists] look bad." Establishment clause cases are brought by Americans of all religions or non-religions because it is not simply the unbelievers who get hurt when one particular creed or another is given favored treatment by the government. Those who adhere to different creeds are hurt as well. It's hard for me to explain what I'm about to explain because our shared language doesn't really have words for it. When a majority group has control over social, legal, and public life, that's usually called privilege. For example, there's white privilege. Well, in this country (USA) we also have Christian privilege. I'm not simply talking about religious privilege. In general, the exercise of the Christian religion is not legally privileged, at least not more so than any other religion. (Because of the tax laws, you could say it's legally privileged over non-religion in some ways.) It's the privilege of those born into the Christian religion that I refer to. Cultural Christians. Ethnic Christians. At this point, the confessing Christians will be stomping up and down. Plenty of people are born into Christian families and apostacize. Plenty of people are born into non-Christian families and convert. All true. But again, I'm not talking about the Christian religion. I'm not talking about whether or not you believe the Apostle's Creed. I'm talking about being born into Christiandom. Was your family, within recent memory, Christian, or did they adhere to some other sect, and was that sect nationally or ethnically distinct from Christiandom? Were they Jewish French or Muslim Bosnians or Cherokee who adhered to traditional Native American traditions? Were they Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, or Zoroastrians? I could go on, but I hope you grasp my point. Because of the Christian--perhaps it's easier to refer to it as Gentile, but I only wish to include those of the Christian persuasion--privilege in this country, our thinking about Christianity and its discontents is muddled. Christianity is the default. We assume that non-Christians--unless they profess a faith strongly associated with a certain ethnic background--are lapsed Christians. Even non-Christians make this assumption. I have seen Ex-Christian (religion) atheists excoriate Jewish atheists for calling themselves that. They have failed to distinguish between the issue of religious belief and ethnic identity. There is an indigenous, minority ethnic group in Europe which is not Christian. They are known as Jews. Europe is not unique in this respect--the Indian subcontinent has a number of minority religions. Sikhs and Jains in India are born into these religions. They may be identified as Sikh or Jains whether or not they ascribe to the claims of those religions. Having been born in those groups, they are ethnically distinct from the majority Hindus (and, well, Muslims), even if a genetic test wouldn't tell them apart. (I don't know if it would or not, but let's say it wouldn't for the sake of argument.) Non-Christian (ethnicity) are ethnically distinct from Christian (ethnicity). Thus, it is offensive to them to be subsumed within Christian (group) symbols--no matter what religious claims they accept or reject. Belief is not the issue--group identity is. | | Monday, August 24th, 2009 | | 7:28 pm |
Postmodernists = Stinking Liars
Check this shit out:Those who are wedded to the idea of ‘evidence’ in the health sciences maintain what is essentially a Newtonian, mechanistic world view: they tend to believe that reality is objective, which is to say that it exists, ‘out there’, absolutely independent of the human observer, and of the observer’s intentions and observations.This is from an inflammatory but intellectually lacking critique of evidence-based medicine. It's also a GIANT LIE. These clowns seem to have read a popular book on quantum theory and now think they're smarter than teh syuntists--you know, the ones that developed quantum mechanics in the first place. they tend to believe that reality is objective, which is to say that it exists, ‘out there’, absolutely independent of the human observerBULL FREAKING SHIT You cannot observe ANYTHING without INTERACTING with it. Case closed! POMO: a way for intellectual lightweights to pretend their weenies measure up to real poets, artists, writers, and now, scientists. | | Saturday, July 25th, 2009 | | 12:16 pm |
Can't get enough of Gates-gate
So sue me. No, wait, don't! Impressed with Obama for how he defused the situation. He even caused me to calm down. However, the bigger story is not the right-wing police union's love song with right-wing radio or the fact that racial profiling (gasp!) still exists, it's the fact that plenty of people see nothing wrong with a 58-year old lame guy being arrested on his porch for Contempt of Cop! There's no debate that he mouthed off to the cop. And if YOU had just come off a 24-hr air travel ordeal and had to break into your own residence because some punk busted the lock trying to break in while you were gone, YOU'd be cranky too. It seems to me from reading the arrest report that the cop didn't want to give his badge # because the citizen was threatening to file a complaint. I work with the public, too (not as a cop, obviously), and I'm also subject to "community reports". I can understand why the cop got into the mindset where he escalated the situation, but can't excuse it. That's NOT what he was trained to do. He was being an officious ass about the Harvard ID card because he was angry that he was being called names and threatened with a complaint report. He then really went over the line by luring Gates out of the residence so he could charge him with a bogus crime. A professional de-escalates a situation. This guy, 11-yr vet or no, sensitivity trainer or no, acted unprofessionally, and the sad thing is, the police union comes on the air and says, "Yeah, we're bullies, and you'd bettah respect that, too. Sgt. Saint Crowley should not be persecuted for doing his job (showing a citizen who's boss). Remember, you don't pay our salaries--the Blessed Virgin accepts your offerings as acknowledgments of your sinful nature and prays for your salvation. Donations to the Policemen's Fund can be made toll-free at any time and we aah recording names." | | Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 | | 6:56 pm |
| | Saturday, July 18th, 2009 | | 8:08 am |
RIP Walter
Walter Cronkite has passed away and the media is going on and on about how they remember him from the 60's. Unfortunately that was before my time: I know Walter Cronkite as the voice of Benjamin Franklin. Since nobody in the media sees it as worthy of mention, I'll mention it here. There was a great PBS series in the early 2000's called "Liberty's Kids". It has a stupid intro rap, but ignore that. It delves deeply into the revolutionary period, not only describing the notables of the period and the great events of the period, but also the competing ideas and spirit of the times. Each of the kids comes from a different background and has different loyalties which will be tested as the Revolution begins. There were a lot of great voices in this series, often uncredited. I'm pretty sure Harry Shearer (Spinal Tap, Simpsons) did some voices (Washington?) ... I also recognized Ahnold as the voice of a Hessian leader. I don't know who voiced LaFayette, but he became the historical figure who surprised and enchanted me the most. Cronkite was Ben Franklin, who is your guide in every episode. He has employed the kids in his print shop--think Cyborg and the Teen Titans, except that Liberty's Kids doesn't suck. Cronkite and Franklin were a great match. I think that few could have imparted Franklin's unique wisdom and sense of humor--and humanity--as he could. If you've never seen this series, I suggest you give it a try. Just forgive it the intro music. It's a tragic attempt to be hip. The sheer competence of the writing, in storytelling and historical research, speak for themselves, but you can imagine the production meetings. ("Kids today will never go for that fife and drums stuff. We're trying to reach an audience that watches TV and listens to hip-hop...." *groan* (nothing against hip-hop, but crappy white-rap is called TRYING TOO HARD).) | | Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 | | 5:05 pm |
Huh.
Can somebody tell me what this means? "That is when I realized that in some way, Zaphod* was the missing integer to that equation."*-Name changed to protect the guilty Did I miss that in math class or something? When I was doing all those harmonics equations in physics class, was I missing an integer? No, seriously, I'm trying to figure this one out. I mean ... crap ... modular arithmetic? Nah, you can have fractional expressions there, too. Uh... the exponents in linear polynomials maybe? No... Okay, okay, you have to admit that geometry uses a lot of integers--whole numbers--but then you aren't talking about equations any more. Eh heh heh heh. I really need to stop reading crappy slash fanfiction. Gonna get me some Terry Pratchett. | | Monday, June 8th, 2009 | | 4:43 pm |
| | Saturday, June 6th, 2009 | | 4:21 pm |
NEW AOS Four Times Spock Didn't Nail Anybody (And One Time He Totally Did)
Title: Four Times Spock Didn't Nail Anybody (And One Time He Totally Did) Author: Hypatia Kosh Universe: Abrams Star Trek, aka AOS, aka STR, aka Reboot... Characters/Pairings: K, S, U, Spock/Uhura, Kirk/Spock Rating: R/Mature Summary: Spock is asexual before his first pon farr, but he still finds a way to show the people in his life that he cares. Then pon farr shows up and changes everything. This is an attempt at a short response to my own prompt at the st_xi_kink community. ( Read more... ) | | Monday, May 25th, 2009 | | 10:54 am |
| | Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 | | 9:44 am |
| | Thursday, April 30th, 2009 | | 10:21 am |
Problem of Evil -- the Greek take
Just realized today that some people don't realize how ancient this debate is: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE) | | Sunday, April 19th, 2009 | | 8:02 pm |
Australian take on the Great Incarnation
The angels have a few suggestions for the Big Man on his planned trip to Earth. Unfortunately, like with most meetings, seniority counts for more than research... | | Saturday, December 13th, 2008 | | 9:30 am |
| | Sunday, November 9th, 2008 | | 11:19 am |
Newsflash: Obama is a moderate
Now that the election is over, I'm seeing a lot of surprise in far partisan camps, both the disappointed far right and the shocked, I tell you, shocked left wing of the Democratic Party, that Obama is picking centrists for his team, including Clintonistas and more than a few bugaboos of the more left-leaning side of the party. It's wonderful Schadenfreude, I have to admit, to see these facile idiots hoist by their own petard once again. I long ago parted ways with the more extreme end of the Democratic Party (and we won't even bring up the radical Socialists, the ones who won't even break bread with the DNC, perpetually bitter that Maoism or revolutionary Socialism or what-have-you have their glory days long behind them). To me, liberalism means those Enlightenment values of tolerance, learning, intellectual curiosity, and freethought. I despise both the hardcore partisan "this is war!" attitude and the la-la-la-I'm-not-listening attitude towards the other side(s) of the ideologues. I was trained in my liberal education to consider all viewpoints and try to understand where others are coming from. Well, I will admit to being a bit closed-minded myself: I believe that all of us are human, and when one side or the other starts implying otherwise, I stop listening. It amazed me to see the far-lefty groups embrace Obama. I have followed his career for a long, long time. He always has been a moderate. Yes, I would call him progressive, because of his views on gay rights and healthcare coverage, but ascribing to a progressive philosophy does not mean you're on the calcified side of the Democratic Party. Although you wouldn't know this from watching Fox News, both Obama and McCain have been fairly moderate and not particularly partisan (not counting McCain's "bomb Iran" mania), although both have shown some party loyalty: McCain to his detriment by backing Bush in 2004 and Obama to his credit by running a very positive primary campaign despite a lot of pressure to get negative and attack his fellow party members. The hardcore Dem partisans and the far-left types are not going to find much to love in Obama. It seems to me that they looked at his skin color and his Iraq war position (and remember, he hit the national political scene AFTER the Iraq vote and thus was not beholden to any of that) and just assumed. Meanwhile the far right and hardcore Republican partisans, fed a World-Nut-Daily stream of hysteria about Obama's alleged Muslim/terrorist/socialist ties, not only came out the day after the election crying (alone) that "our republic is over," but are soon to find that their strategem to use Obama as the fall guy for the economic crisis with hopes for their own triumphant return in 2012 will be disappointed. (While I wouldn't call Obama a "New Democrat", it's clear that he was a careful student of Clinton and does have much in common with Clinton and Gore. Clinton, again, was insufficiently liberal in many quarters and this contributed to the defeat (shall we say) of Gore in 2000.) Sure, Obama's background as the child of a single mother, as a Black man, as someone who had to claw his way up on merit without powerful family connections (such as McCain and Bush had) is relevant. I think many voters believe--especially having been spooked by the financial crisis--that Obama better understands the circumstances of their lives because he, too, has lived it. Many ordinary citizens have expressed their feeling that in a time of hardship, they want a president who has compassion for them and not another insulated richie rich who doesn't know how many houses he owns. Certainly I don't think that we're looking at a candidate who is utterly centrist by American standards, by which I would mean consistently taking the majority positions of the middle aged, middle class voter. Obama and Biden have taken a progressive stance on certain social (culture war) issues, although they have demographics (the young, rising voting population) and a growing opinion shift backing them, so this is not really as courageous as it seems. The world has been difference since Lawrence vs. Texas. But engagement of the world is centrist, for the moderate stance is about practicality rather than partisan rancor. It's often forgotten that Nixon was a political moderate, engaging China and signing the Clear Air Act, even if he was at the same time an inveterate party hack whose paranoia led him to subvert the democratic process in an attempt to ensure his reelection. It's also being forgotten that good Republicans of the past accepted the idea of paying income tax to pay off war debts, and this was considered both patriotic and good fiscal policy. Being a moderate does not make you a wishy-washy fence sitter--it makes you a realistic person who considers character and record above party standard-bearing and judgment and analysis above prejudice and cheap name-calling. (One thinks of the perpetually third-rate Bill Maher launching cheap shots against Palin with Dan Savage on his program some weeks ago, in a gag-reflex-inducing display of schoolyard infantilism.) Obama won by appealing to moderates. He ran on a moderate platform, with a liberal stance on culture war issues that few had any enthusiasm for with the economy falling apart. What the partisan hacks have failed to acknowledge in this past year is that both the primary and general election voters have strongly chosen moderates over scorched-earth standard-bearers. Palin's torpedoing of McCain's campaign speaks to this strongly: the partisan hacks were overjoyed, but the middle-road undecided voters were decidedly turned off. Rather than winning over Hilary voters, she sent them flying into the arms of Obama/Biden. The liberal left is celebrating right now, and rightly so. After all, breaking the chain of English/Welsh/Scottish/Dutch and oh, a few Irish names in the Oval Office sends a powerful message to the youth of America. Ending the torture-monkey Bush regime and bringing the US back into the world fold is also a very big deal. But let them not kid themselves. Obama using the Democratic majority in Congress to punish the Republican party and ram a partisan agenda down the country's throat (à la Bush, lest we forget) is not what this country needs right now, and it is not the purpose for which so many Obama voters cast their ballots in his favor. Disclosure: while I consider myself a "radical moderate", I am strongly against war with Iran and pretty much lost all interest in McCain when he began his tirades to that effect. While I was very disappointed with Obama's votes during this year's wave of pig-men bailouts, I found the Republicans with few exceptions were just as eager to ingratiate themselves to the Wall Street fat cats. The selection of Palin was, of course, ludicrous, although a VP is not a president. So perhaps I was rather facile myself in voting for Obama, basing my vote on pretty much one issue (Iran) which I do feel quite strongly about. However, it was a good election to me because both candidates had some very good qualities and I did not feel like I had to hold my nose in the voting booth. | | Sunday, October 12th, 2008 | | 3:09 pm |
By popular request, I present to you this sketch of giant Spectre and the Batman. ( Read more... ) | | Friday, January 4th, 2008 | | 2:36 pm |
| | Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 | | 10:49 am |
History repeats itself
Nothing new in 2000 years ... except maybe for the advent of Marx, Keynes, and the computer: The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
Cicero, 55 BCE s/People/Corporations s/work/'hire domestic labor' hehe | | Thursday, December 6th, 2007 | | 11:17 am |
Wait just a darn minute...
You know how all those "believing" Christian pharmacists refuse to hand out birth control or the morning after pill? Aren't they committing heresy? Stay with me here ... according to the Bible (which these folks claim to be following), it is God (and not Man) who decides whether a woman has a baby or not. Remember Genesis? A stranger comes to visit an old couple in their 60's--Abram and Sarai. The stranger tells Sarai that she's going to have a baby. She laughs in his face. Her husband, getting impatient, gets the maidservant pregnant. (You see, God told him he was going to have an heir, so he figures he'll help the process along.) And then Sarai has a baby. A miracle! But wait--there's more. Remember the story of Hannah? There's a reason Catholic myth assigns this name to Mary's mother (St. Anne--more on that later). She was infertile, and despaired of ever having a child. (According to some other portion of the Bible, women who died childless were unfulfilled or whatever, although Isaiah steps in and says that women who die virgins will get special treatment. Nice.) So she strikes a bargain with God, promising her firstborn to the temple. And ... she has a baby, the prophet Samuel. Hmmm ... noticing a pattern here??? God decides who has a baby--or not. If you don't have a baby, obviously you ticked God off. If you do, God smiled on you, hence all these names that mean "El has blessed us". But wait ... there's more. In the Christian Bible, Jesus' mother Mary has a baby without even having sex! That's right, all you idiots with your talk of "sexual reproduction" are just that. The angel Gabriel swoops in and lets Mary know that God has given her a baby. Of course, her husband-to-be is a little miffed, but with a little retconning and Deus Ex all is well. Clearly all of you folks who think that human beings decide whether they get pregnant or not are just full of kee-rap. God decides. Therefore, denying birth control is heretical! That's like saying you know that it will prevent pregnancy, which is, of course, arrogating God's duties to yourself. Sure, if that deluded (and obviously atheistic) customer wants to believe it's going to work, let them have at it. Of course, some of them are going to say you're doing a good thing by preventing someone else (the customer) from committing a sin. But two sins don't make a blessing! It's only a sin if you BELIEVE it works. Therefore, for the Christian handing them out, clearly they're nothing more than placebos. But for a Christian to refuse would be tantamount to denying God. Get out of that one, assholes! | | Wednesday, December 5th, 2007 | | 6:44 pm |
Paulson Talks Bailouts
Lawmakers in Washingon are near final agreement on a proposed $400 billion bailout of SUV buyers. The massive amount of debt taken on by drivers in an attempt to ensure that their vehicles are significantly bigger than their neighbors’ vehicles has resulted in millions teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. “We need to keep these people in their Hummers, at whatever cost to taxpayers” said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Paulson is expected to announce details of the plan as soon as Wednesday, said sources familiar with the matter. With more than 2 million drivers facing higher interest costs and the possible loss of their oil-company-friendly vehicles if they cannot meet the payments, the future of US overconsumption is at stake. The White House on Friday said it was appropriate to build a “bulwark” against the SUV sector’s woes. “After all”, said President Bush, “it would not be American for us to live within our means and be responsible for our own financial decisions. Those who failed to spend themselves deeply into debt should pick up the tab to keep real Americans riding high.”
Okay, okay, this one is a spoof. But the bailout is real. Just swap "Hummer" for "McMansion," and you're good. The old are eating the young. It has begun. | | Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 | | 1:20 pm |
Inflation video
A techno montage of recent events in finance--the credit implosion which will rock our lives: The Inflation VideoBet you never thought you'd see Hank Paulson's head dancing to techno. *g* |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
shatfat's journal