First, they came for the...

This is shaping up to be a bad week for civil liberties, and it's really getting me down. I've been kicking ass these past few days, so this bad news tempering my excitement? NOT appreciated! I refer primarily, of course, to the complete and utter failure of the state of Maine to uphold the right of same-sex couples to marry. I know only two people from Maine (and only one of them well at all), but I wish that as a sample they had proved to be more representative of the whole (they were both decidedly against the same-sex marriage ban)! My position on marriage is surely well-established by now, so I'll keep any reiteration short and to the point: I...I do and do not understand the idea that same-sex marriage could be threatening or offensive to a person. I mean, sure it might be against the tenets of your religion or something, but did you forget to read the damned bits of your constitution that address the separation of church and state? I mean, yes you could find an idea repulsive on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure that's not how laws work (well, it shouldn't be anyhow). I mean, Etarran hates zucchini, but I can at best imagine him joking about a legal crusade to outlaw its cultivation!

No, the whole miserable business is indefensible. One cannot pretend to live in an open and free society whilst all the while denying his or her countrypeople the same rights he or she enjoys. At best, that can be called hypocrisy. I think I call it tyranny, which is a good segue into another troubling assault on personal freedoms: the recent ban on violent video games in Venuzuela. This has also been an issue in the US, and I guess that it is fitting for a country which is more at ease with making war than making love that their citizens and courts should uphold the right of citizens to simulate all manner of slaughter, but not to marry whomsoever they choose. Wonderful, isn't it?

There's a wonderful essay written by a Venuzuelan on the topic, which can be read here. I'm not sure if I agree that banning violent videogames is tantamount to making protest illegal (although making the expression of views contrary to those of the government a crime? Yeah, there we go!). I think it might be something different, something more than just silencing protest. I think it's entirely possible that the Venuzuelan government is trying to silence an entire generation, regardless of what it is they are saying. If you're incredulous, simply imagine [insert your government here] bans text messaging, facebook, or twitter (hey, wait, hasn't that HAPPENED ALREADY SOMEWHERE?) It could be - at least on the surface - a move to silence particular voices of dissent, but you would realize soon enough I think that the real effect of such a ban would be to effectively evict our generation from home turf. "oh, POOR YOU, you'd have to resort to communications in person, how terrible!" I hear the parents droning sarcastically. No, for serious: That was your way, we have our own way now! It would be like taking away paper and quills before people had phones in their houses, or killing all the troubadours in medieval Europe. Back to videogames, though: I don't think they really express "dissent" of themselves, but they provide our generation with cultural anchors of a sort. Weirdly, I think that the backlash from gamers might be the source of more dissent than games themselves could ever be.

I think that for too long I assumed that 'socialist' meant 'good', and that Hugo Chavez was simply the victim of the kind of slander you're liable to hear about socialists when you live next to one of the most heartless capitalisms the world has ever known. Now, I'm not so sure what I believe. It would be too easy to say "well, now I know the opposite to be true", but I don't think that would actually bely a better understanding of the situation. What I do know is that I want to live in Venuzuela even less than I did before...

...and there's the rub. This is all very well and far away for me, but it's terrifying to think that it IS TRUE somewhere. My hard drive and collection of optical disks? VENUZUELAN CONTRABAND?!?! Weird stuff!

I wonder if there are any gaming speakeasies already in operation in Venuzuela?

Loud!

It was 20 years ago today/

Morgentaler got the courts to say/

That abortion wasn't out of style/

And the feminists, it made them smile!

:)

I thought I'd do just a little something to celebrate the 20th anniversary of legal, safe access to abortion in Canada. It literally has to be "little", because I have to leave for class with all due alacrity, but perhaps I will add some more to it upon my return home. So, to all the women out there who still bother to read this, my condolences: it took our society until just 20 years ago to figure out that you had the right to reproductive freedom, so I expect today might be a little bittersweet when put in larger perspective. To the dissenters - the so-called "pro-life" camp - my condolences: it's 2008 and you still haven't figured it out yet.

On a final note, I still think it's best to just use brains and birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy altogether, with special emphasis on the use of the former. This is not only proactive, I'm pretty sure it's less expensive as well.

You go, grrrrls!

-LOUD

BY YOUR COMMAND

Hack vs Slash

I had this glorious plan, going on...two months now? It's probably been more, I may have been planning this since the summer. I wanted to buy a barebones notebook, and create from scratch my portable gaming masterpiece, as a counterpart to my fully-loaded desktop in the big aluminum box. It would mean an end to running WinXP on a slowly-failing Celeron 950 (which went over a GHz until my dad stole back the good heatsink!) with 768MB of ram (two-thirds of which is borrowed) and an ATI Radeon 9600 256MB, which is my current secondary machine in the case of basement LAN action, which happens all-too-infrequently for my tastes. Then, on top of this, I was going to buy an Xbox 360 HD DVD drive, and start enjoying some 1080i content (yes, 1080i, because I have a clunky old CRT television), with the aid of one or both of my computers and a little app called AnyDVD HD.

All this comes to a crashing halt for a few reasons, the first of which being that the laptop chassis I want comes in a few flavours, and getting the precise match would involve ordering from the US, enduring possible tariffs, delivery surcharges, and all those scary things that must be keeping our domestic industry intact by making it nigh-impossible to get what you want for cheap when it's not available in Canada. I guess I could break down and buy a lesser variant of this chassis from within the country, but it would feel as much like defeat as victory. The Xbox 360 HD DVD drive, well, not so much a problem as a question of who I trust on ebay. $70 for a buy-it-now? That just sounds like too good a deal...

The real kicker is that a reasonably-priced laptop by Acer is selling for $400 off at the future shop. It has everything I want except for DVI output and an MXM module, including an HDMI port and an HD DVD drive. It costs $800, easily half of the total cost of the DIY laptop and the HD DVD drive would cost separately. I may have to give in on this score, and simply buy the DIY laptop separately, but at that point I will have spent some $2000 on laptops, which would - if spent on a single laptop - probably get me a single unit with a RAID array, 17" screen, and SLI. Maybe I should do that, instead, although I cannot for the life of me think of where I might get a laptop IDE HD DVD drive for anything less than $800 on its own.

In short, I have gone from a single decision back to start, and I have to start this process of deciding the best course of action all over again. I am not the most decicive person at the best of times, so this really helps nothing.

Maybe I'll see if I can't cajole my dad into splitting the cheap laptop with me, if I can have the HD DVD drive. Now fitting THAT into a barebone chassis would be what I'd call a fun little project. Not so much hacking involved, but I'd probably avoid buying Tor 9x screwdrivers...

In the game of Hack versus Slash, why are the big box stores out to take away all of our fun?

The Moral Compass

So I did go and see a certain fantasy movie with supposedly atheist roots, and I have to say that I'm disappointed. You'd think that if a movie were going to raise religious hackles, it could at least have the decency to be a good movie, and more importantly, to be an atheist movie. There isn't any mention of a "Creator" or "God" figure, there's not even a Big Brother. The Magesterium is churchlike only in terms of its visual style, which is great, I love how the stern-looking clergyman type is the bad dude with the poison for once, and the free thinkers are the good guys, that's AWESOME. Like Sci-Fi Channel's perplexing "Riverworld" adaptation, the movie has only made me want to read the book, because it has presented me with some cool world-building, and not a lot else, which I expect the book will fix. This is a terrible trend in movies, because libraries will let you borrow a book for free, and cliffs notes to summarize it for you don't cost as much as movie tickets and overpriced popcorn. Visually, this movie is astounding, and I would gladly give armoured bear hugs to the concept artists and digital rendering crew, fantastic work! Now if only the screenwriters could have worked a little harder, then we might actually have CONTENT! Also, it would help if Daniel Craig and his Tiger had featured more in the movie, but you can just read any old review of GC and know that.

What saddens me about this situation is that an opportunity to bring atheist messages into entertainment has been missed. I'd like some entertainment that stands up and says that you don't need Jesus, or God, or Mohammed, or 4 000-year-old books to have morals, ethics, drive, determination, life, and happiness. I'd like to see something that challenges not just arbitrary authority, but the actual tenets of religion. This is not to say that we need to go about killing God in books for this purpose: positive messages are more desireable in the end. Better still, just look at the truth: the genetics, the selection pressures, and social life. Look at why religion might be beneficial, look at how it is not, in some cases. I think it's fair to say that any imposition of belief would place us atheists in bad faith, and so rather than bonking people over the head screaming "there is no God!", just lay down interesting facts and let them draw their own conclusions, rather than giving them rhetoric and scripture. Will that win "converts"? Not many, but then it's not like converting people to atheism is all that time-critical: belief doesn't really matter if there's no afterlife, so there's no "saving" people! There is only showing them that they can take control of their own moral codes.

The Review

So I've been working on a review of BSG: Razor, but it's not really been coming together. I end up listing every little thing about it, when really I only need to get a few points across:

1) If you like BSG, it's basically more of the same. For that matter, it's an incredibly ordinary mid-series miniseries, because it introduces cool characters and events, and then blows them up or away before the audience can say "wait, why weren't they in the series proper, if this was important" WARNING! CONTAINS GIANT SPOILERS!

2) If you haven't seen BSG, you don't want to start here.

3) Admiral Cain's relationship with the cylon 6 "Gina" is the best new character development. It places the infiltrator within the crew of Pegasus, it makes Cain human, it makes her descent into cold-blooded revenge so much more understandable, and also makes her treatment of Gina all the more horrifying. Even though BSG has played with sex scenes in the past, they don't go the easy route of sexploitation of two attractive female characters. Good move on their part, because it stands out as character development, and not ratings-grab. It's also presented with no bias. The only reaction is "It's just the admiral seems so self-sufficient". Tricia Helfer and Michelle Forbes have great on-screen chemistry, which is the crowning touch to this master-stroke. Brilliance

4) I really like Admiral Cain's original XO. It makes it very painful when she shoots him. Also Brilliant!

5) The new character, Kendra Shaw, is mad, mad hot, and ohhh that accent. Pity she dies in a stupid cliché involving a nuclear bomb that must be manually detonated

6) The cylon hybrid whom she destroys (along with a basestar) is cool. Too bad we still don't understand why the Cylons were compelled to become fleshy and have religion in the first place. Hell, we haven't a clue, even. Prophecies are cool, but the series really ought to back-fill in order to shed light on the origins of the organic Cylons.

7) Speaking of clichés, we have an entire plot arc revolving around...Something Adama saw or did earlier in his career, but neglected to mention even when it would have been pertinent. Anyone remember "Bulldog"? It's as if the writer's strike forced the crew to fill in the plot with no imagination, or something. Especially that nuke thing. That's from Armageddon, and it's even sorta happened in the series already (end of season 1 ish, before Boomer shoots Adama)!

8) They could have just had a bunch of Kendra Shaw beauty shots and that one scene where the Cylon says "By your command" with all the Vocordery goodness of the original show. It would have advanced the plot of BSG about as much as Razor.

More later, I promise

LOUD!

"I don't care how 'dope' his ride is!"

Will These Hands Never Be Clean?

As a society, we have blood on our hands. There are 5 women dead in Ipswitch, and there is one dead in Gatineau. These deaths come barely a week apart, and the victims are prostitutes, or in the case of Gatineau's murder, a suspected prostitute (her family denies the claim). With BC's Pickton case now coming to trial (I believe they have divided the victims into separate trials, there are so many), there are calls from Sex workers for better legislation in Canada, and elsewhere. It is damn near time the government smartened up on this score, in my opinion. If anyone is under the illusion that restrictive laws will make sex as a commodity disappear, let the record show that as an institution, prostitution is older than democracy. Like death, taxes, and really stupid people, prostitution is an inevitability.

From an economic point of view, the sex trade exists to satisfy a demand (as do all industries). And let's face it: the demand for sexual gratification is going nowhere fast. What is so offensive about prostitution? Is there a line somewhere that I am not seeing? Look at the tags on your shoes, and tell me that the conditions under which the poor Cambodians, or Vietnamese who made those shoes are any better than the streets of a wealthy nation. I dare you! Unless slaves or children are involved, why shouldn't a person be allowed to sell their body as they see fit? It is not a happy world where one may be forced to make such a decision to feed themselves, but would you rather these people starve? Before you raise the inevitable “prostitution degrades women” argument, consider that if proper legislation were put in place, the women involved could ensure their own terms and safety far better than they can presently.

The same problem exists with drugs: instead of saving bundles of money by simply promoting caution, safety, and responsibility, governments make a poorly informed decision to try and remove the offensive practices altogether. This creates the opportunity for lucrative black markets, a source of income for organized crime. Considering the cost of paying policemen, bringing offenders to trial, and paying for their incarceration, is it really cheaper to fight a war against drugs? No! By waging this war, we indirectly fund drive-by shootings, and gang wars. Of course, politicians are able to sweep these inconvenient facts under the rug come election day. Similarly, instead of helping pimps and gangs, by making them the only perceived recourse to some, allowing sex workers to set their own standards would take money away from the perpetrators of evil.

I do not buy sex, nor do I use drugs, but there will always be a demand for both. If we are willing to condemn hundreds to die by gang shooting, or serial murder, because we believe that making either available is 'Wrong', what does that say about us as a society? That we allow ethical conjecture to blind us to the logical truth? As a civilization which prides itself on being rational and enlightened, that seems a tad contradictory. Holland gets props here, because they've already realized the truth in what I am saying to you now. HUP HOLLAND!

Loosing Battle

A letter writer to the Citizen expressed contentment that the Church has refused to change with the times, saying that materialistic culture should be opposed by said institution. Of course, it becomes readily evident that I should not be angry at this writer's presumption that my distance from the church weighs upon my soul. Why? Because she has no mind of her own. “When the Catholic Church speaks”, she says “It is speaking truth”. I am sorry if this sounds heartless, but I only regard the very religious as true human beings if they are capable of entertaining dissent and discussion. If they cannot, or will not, how are they different from common herd animals? In fact, I would argue lower, since they have the capacity for rational inquiry, but choose to squander it. Luckily, recent campaigns by churches to spread the message that the church cares for your soul, and can help you find meaning, yada, yada...have me convinced that if the church is indeed fighting against current values, it is loosing ground that it desperately wants to hold.

If the message of love and tolerance from religion cannot be separated from the potent and arbitrary hate which is also part of Dogma, then I could not be happier about this. The world could very well be a better place when goodness comes from the desire to be good, not the need to go to heaven; When you love your neighbour, man or woman, straight, gay, bi, trans, white, black, or any shade in-between; when you question what you are told; when robes, crosses, and funny hats don't signify ultimate authority; when Al-Qaeda and its ilk are no more; when sex can be for fun, and masturbation isn't sinful. I could go on, but I think the existing list will suffice. Am I being too optimistic? Would a secular society fill itself with unguided abuse? If that is the price of being free from abuse disguised as the saving of souls, so be it. Also, our primate friends, Binobos, are known to be very peaceful (and bisexual, but I digress), and I doubt they have religion. By contrast, humans and chimpanzees are violent by nature. I know I am in danger of being repetitious in my denouncement of the church, but in the light of calls for social progress, it seemed fitting to throw a little vitriol towards the largest inhibitor thereof.

P'Tagh Revisited

Another letter writer praised Stéphane Dion as being open-minded, for his willingness to question our mission in Afghanistan. I've got news for this guy: It's not called open-mindedness, it's called demagoguery. Stéphane Dion, now leading the opposition wants to take every opportunity to gain votes, and that means making the Conservatives look bad. So what if it means taking a contradictory position to pre-defeat Liberals? People are quick to forget, and equally expedient in claiming that the man or woman who wants our troops out of harm's way is the champion of the people. This is all politics, and all bullshit. But then, what do you expect from these dry, conniving types? If sending you to your certain death for whatever reason would put either of these two ahead even 1% in the polls, they'd do it, and they would sleep well that night. Read 'The Prince' by Machiavelli sometime, if you haven't already. Then see just how much you trust people in power...

Only a little bit of work left to do before the holidays. Hopefully tonight will see the end of it, as I would like some free time to write a little more of my serial.

Rabbits from the Magickal Hat!

Sign of the Apocalypse?

I found something that is both popular, and entertaining...what the hell? I mean, these things happen (Star Wars; The Killers; to a lesser extent, the new Battlestar Galactica...), but it is usually a freak of good marketing acumen, and source material that is widely appreciable, yet possessed of great artistic integrity. I suppose Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a prime example. If anyone says 'Friends', I will beat them down. Other than these diamond-rare exceptions, most quality hides in cult classics, such as Firefly, and Farscape - two of the best shows on TV. More successful shows like Stargate SG1 will never quite reach the same level...which is the usual trade -off. Plot arcs discourage casual viewership. Try tackling Charlie Jade without a sense of episode order (as I have done...why haven't I googled an episode guide? huh. oops), and you will see what I mean. I find it amusing that SG1 has nabbed actors from both Farscape and Firefly...Hint: it still won't make you as good as either!

Oh, right....on to what I found. Again, I owe S.M.O. for this one. I have talked to her a lot lately, as she is one of those people I can and will talk to for hours, especially if there is work I am trying to avoid. I think everyone needs such people...people to drink coffee with, share dreams with, people who won't laugh at you for what you think, only make you think harder. I love you people. I hope I appreciate you guys enough that you know who you are.

What's that I hear? "Get on with it"? Ah, yes:

Here is what I found

I may have had just a smidgen too much sugar today, you know...

oh, and read the stuff marked as either "classic" or "controversial" in the sidebars, as the day-to-day stuff is not half as good.

Moving along...

Pokémon Snap...well, not really.

In light of Priestshinegami linking to me with the words "the hat, THE HAT", I feel inclined to share pictures of me and my Very Fine Hat (VFH), for those not fortunate enough to know me personally (ego much? :P). Well, I got my hands on our sweet digital SLR camera, and proceeded to take a great many pictures. Off the bat, I will tell you that these photos occasionally lie...I have not shown the messes that surround some of the stuff. They're not as bad as the one in my room, but they are there, nonetheless. My quasi photo safari:

Can I get a "HELLZ YEAH!!!!"...?

'Nuff said. The Kibosh has been positively slammed on Harper, and especially those who voted Conservative to appease their hateful homophobic senses. I am practically jubilant now, because had things gone the other way, no Canadian could claim that this is the best place in the world to live. Not a one of us. It has been so many years since we tried to leave the racism and discrimination that marred much of our history...to think that we almost went back upon our progress is a troubling thought. I have made my views on same-sex couples' rights quite clear in the past, so I don't think I need to say more. Well, except:

In your faces, Stephen Harper, Pope Benedict, and David Warren! Now crawl back into the spawning pits of hate from whence you came!

Finale

I needed a nice blanket title for my end-of-post thoughts...the blog is not going to be over anytime soon, fear not.

The Daydream Believer is now angry at Gold for certain comments made by the latter. Her posts (DB) are intentionally cryptic in nature, so I apologize if anyone finds only confusion in attempting to understand the nature of this altercation. I'd rather not put this bad blood through the centrifuge, as it were...but I will make my mind plain before you, as I have some observations:

I know both Gold, and DB to be kind and honest people, prince(sse)s among men/women, no hyperbole. They can both be...distanced, and at the same time be very warm people, paradoxically. Gold...I think he sought out others that understood, people who would accept the distance. I'm not sure about DB, but I know that Gold is wrong to say she does not answer as much as she asks. I have talked with her at length on occasion...she does not lack stories to tell, that is for certain. To his credit, Gold did post on his blog that he allowed himself to read another person, and that it had brought him trouble in the past. The question posed by my mind was "Is it better to speak your mind, and give someone an answer they will not like, or to hold your tongue?" After some consideration, I think it was kinder of Gold to tell DB what he believed she would not want to hear....but needed to. On the other hand, being the age we are, we may ask the sort of questions DB asked, because we need reassurance that we will not reach our darker potential. Being told that one hasn't changed in 4 years is hardly a confidence builder when one wishes to forge a new identity, a separate identity from times past.

DB, you are perhaps a little distant, but that needn't be so, not if you do not wish it to be. Trust and closeness are not easy things to form at the best of times, of course...I trust a number of people, but then I have known most of those people for many years now (ie. since third grade). For what it's worth, I trust you.

Gold, I think you should not let people's reactions stop you from speaking your mind. So long as they know that you mean to help them confront that which they are afraid to admit to themselves.

Coming Next Week:

Why the French colloquialism for "Orgasm" is, in fact, the basis for an excellent theory on the meaning of life. No, I am not on drugs. Yes, I am as scared as you are.

(23:27:22) [name] said: (Loud) everything just went horribly horribly wrong

a real IM. It seems there is a drama-storm headed this way. Take cover, people.

Catholic. He Is Real, His Love Is Not.

Cardinal Offensive

“I sense that Elton John and columnist Janice Kennedy have not experienced the loving side of the Roman Catholic church...”, begins a recent letter to the Ottawa Citizen. A scant few lines later, it says “Jesus calls us to love homosexuals. The church teaches that all people deserve dignity, respect, and love. The chuch also knows that homosexual intercourse is contrary to God's plan and distances homosexuals from God.”

Yeah, I sense a whole lot of love in there. Why, I'll bet you love homosexuals to DEATH in the Catholic Church*. This isn't a case of “love the sinner, hate the sin”, this is the classic “I love you the way you are, now CHANGE” relationship. This is not the same unconditional love that I would assume everyone else is entitled to. I find it amusing that people are defending the church in this way, almost marketing it as a kinder, gentler church. I don't buy it, not one bit. In the same letter I quoted before, it says “The Church has not rejected Elton John or Ms. Kennedy, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the Church. I'm sorry...no, no I'm NOT fucking sorry, but the holy book you cling to was written thousands of years ago, and for all you have any right to assume, could have been written as a comedy by an early humourist. Maybe if you have context, it's hi-larious...but seriously, If I am correct, didn't Jesus speak out against the status quo? I'm not calling Elton John the second coming, but when did it become not ok to challenge people's assumptions? I suppose I can comfort myself that as much as you resist, change is inevitable. The Catholics may have hated Martin Luther (again, not giving this role to Elton John specifically), but they were forced to change eventually, after the reformation. Cling to your pope, and your musty old book if you must, but remember these words:

“I AM OZYMANDIAS, KING OF KINGS: LOOK UPON MY WORKS, YE MIGHTY, AND DESPAIR!”

The winds of change cannot be held back forever.

While I'm at it. I have some more bones to pick with another letter writer:

“Catholics....cannot change what has been handed down, regardless of what new social agenda sprouts its head”

1. See above comments on Luther, and the inevitability of change.

2. Laugh at the naivite of the above quote

3. Repeat step 2 as necessary

And the REAL kicker:

“To call the church “homophobic” is an old attack word that doesn't quite make it. Witness the hundreds of hospitals and centres in AIDS-ravaged countries where the church is in the front line in caring for these ill and disadvantaged”

1. I saw a population video in World Issues. You know who gets AIDS? A lot of impoverished women do. You know where they get it from? Unprotected sex with men, often husbands. Unless I am mistaken, homosexuality is nowhere NEAR common enough to cause that spread. You know what the Catholic Church doesn't support the use of, that would save people from contracting AIDS? CONDOMS!

2. Caring for AIDS patients is NOT the same as supporting individual sexual freedom. Also, why so big on cure, when you ACTIVELY OPPOSE EFFECTIVE PREVENTION?!?!?!

This letter is so great, because it is one gigantic logical fallacy, AND it's offensive, because it presents AIDS as a primarily homosexual issue. Ah said, AH SAID, can you FEEL the LOVE yet?

In conclusion, the Roman Catholic Church loves homosexuals like a Neo-Nazi loves a black Jewish immigrant.

This is seriously getting on my nerves, you know? Why must it be such a huge deal in this day and age? I know maybe two or three people who are openly bi, and at least one lesbian. Are they bad people? Fuck No! There is one who gets on my nerves, but that's nothing to do with his sexual orientation. The others are friends of varying closeness, all of whom I hold dear. I will never ask them to justify the gender of whoever they want to date / get horizontal with. People who have been made to feel unwelcome understand the value of kindness all the more, I would say. Ever shunned a kid, 'cause he or she was jumpy and annoying? Yeah, I've been that kid, so I know. Choosing to control my impulses is something I can do, and so I can make a lot more friends now. These people can't, and shouldn't have to change who they fancy, so they may have to live with the social stigma for longer that I had to live with my own. Terrible as it is, I think it will galvanize them to be kinder people, who want to prevent the same discrimination against others. They will be far better people than the sheep who wrote those letters, in my opinion.

I won't ask the Church to accept such people as they are, of course; It would be rather like walking up to a pig in a farmyard, and demanding it to take flight immediately. I will, however, move that the church is counter-productive to social progress, and should no longer be considered realevant in modern society. We owe the church a debt of gratitude for laying the moral foundations of society, of course. Even the most secualr of morals take their cues from religion, in some way or another. We should repay our debt, by helping the church to bow out of politics and society, before it makes itself look any more the fool than it already has. And we're not talking the cool, Shakespearian fool here, neither.

Is anyone else tired of this? Can the Church not accept that it will never make homosexuality go away, and can homosexuals accept that the church changes very slowly, and reluctantly?

It's Almost Over!

I think I may have filled my 'Hatin' on the Church' quota for the week, so I'll keep this as short as possible:

If you have read and understood the poem quoted in the above section (Ozymandias), and even if you haven't, I'm sure you are at least capable of entertaining the concept that nothing is eternal. Why are we so intent on fooling ourselves, then? Cultures come and go, values come and go with them. Some customs get copied, manage to hold out a little longer, but when you look at human history, the only real universal commonalities are Food, Sex, Violence, and Ingenuity to help us do the first 3 things better. Omnivores like us haven't been around forever, and neither has sexual reproduction. Violence is not new, but the boundless zeal with which we persue it is somewhat unique. The Catholic Papacy and the Muslim Jihadists have it wrong, and it is not their time to shine. Both have seen their 'glory days' come and go. Maybe, just maybe, either one will manage to gain a foothold for some time, conquer a little new territory, burn heretics / stone women, all that jazz. It won't last. Secularism (think China, people...it's going to get BIG) will have its day, and that will pass as well. Maybe it'll be Gaianism afterwards...I think I could live with that.

So why do I bother posting about scary religious stuff, if I don't think it will amount to anything? Whoa, whoa....I didn't say that it wouldn't come to anything. There is a great risk that people are going to be hurt in attempted revivals, of any faith or church. Hell, when the scientologists declare some kind of L. Ron-Jihad on people who eat cookies with a slice of lemon, 2 cherries, and maple syrup on top, I'm going to be fuckin' terrified! If we stop this sort of thing now, less people will be hurt later. Once we've dealt with the religions, we can get back to preparing for the REAL threats.

...Like the invasion of the Alien-Robot-Zombie-Horde.

Casino Royale Review postponed for such a time as it would make any sense if I write it.