Run for the hills! The crazies are coming!

Last night was midterm election night. I purposefully tried to avoid the returns because I knew what was coming and I just wanted to find out in the morning when the dust had settled. I say tried because I was unsuccessful in my attempts to do so until I got off work and drowned my sorrows with a beer for 5 at the bar. But that is neither here nor there.

My take on what happened?

1) 2012 elections will be easier for the Dems. Boehner says he wants to cooperate with the Senate and Obama, but will that actually happen? No. He wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, which WILL NOT happen because he'd need to get it through the Dem-controlled Senate and Obama, who I will hope stand their ground and let them expire. He'll also work his tail off to repeal healtch care reform, which ironically enough the American people don't want repealed - they want it expanded. And God forbid the people railing against the reform get sick and then either get dropped by their insurance provider or have them not cover their expenses. News alert - because of the reform, they can't do that anymore! But again, he'll have to work with the Senate and Obama to do so. But Boehner has said in the past that he will refuse to work with the Dems to get anything accomplished. They've been saying all campaign long that this election will be a referendum on Obama's presidency. If the American people were really as fed up with Obama's presidency and the actions of the 111th Congress, they would have won by a much larger margin and won both houses back. Their majority is 239 compared to the 262 that the Dems had and they only gained 6 seats in the Senate to break the filibuster-proof 60 the Dems had. So, why do I think 2012 will be easier for the Dems? Simple, really. The GOP will continue to undermine any progress by holding the House hostage unless the Dems compromise. Being the spineless oafs they are, they will of course bend to the GOP's will because they are a big bunch of bullies. Things will still not get any better and in 2 years time, the Dems can say that they worked with the GOP to get things accomplished, but still nothing changed and if we were to re-elect them to a majority, there will be progress. And either we will see the GOP win back both chambers and the White House or Dems win it all back. See what I mean about this being a cycle?

2) My faith in America has been restored, for now. There were limited winners from the Tea Party: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, to name a couple. Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell and Sharron "rape victims should make lemonade out of a lemon situation" Angle both were defeated. I don't think the Tea Party is going anywhere, unfortunately. With the Dems still in control of the Senate and in the White House, the GOP will operate in one of two ways. They will either continue to be a bunch of obstructionist bullies or they will mellow out and disengage with the extremists in the Tea Party in an effort to appear more moderate and to actually govern. I still favor the idea that they will continue to be obstructionists. And if they do continue to do so, the Tea Party is the new face of the GOP. That may be good news for the Dems, since more moderate Republicans will jump ship and become Dems or independents who caucus with the Dems. Like I said, my faith was restored for the time being. I can only hope that the Tea Party will become a faint memory. I really don't see them trying to reach across the aisle and win support amongst moderates and the left.

And with that being said, I have a few questions for the GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians: if you're against the government in your private life, why are you pro-life/anti-choice and anti-gay rights? Those are both very private issues. To me, it's simple. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. Don't force your religious views on the rest of the country. The same goes for gay marriage - if you don't want gays to "devalue" marriage, maybe you shouldn't get married either since half of straight marriages end in divorce these days. I know they all say they are Constitutionalists, but I'm sorry to burst their bubble. First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If you're going to try and make abortions and gay marriage illegal based solely on what your holy book tells you, it won't pass. It's against the Constitution. Thanks for playing, though.

Also, why do you want lower taxes? Will it create jobs? NO! Will it cut the deficit? NO! Are you, the people in the middle class getting the lower taxes? NO! All it will do is de-fund important programs. Your tax dollars funded my grade school education. Your tax dollars pay for fire and police departments. Your tax dollars pay to repave roads that you drive on every day to work. Your tax dollars will also pay for your Social Security and Medicare when you retire. You were expecting those benefits, right? Kiss them goodbye if you want to lower your taxes. If the GOP really had it their way, we wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare anymore. And as a side note, you do realize those programs are socialism, right? What programs do you want to cut in order to make a dent in the deficit? GOP leadership has yet to offer any solutions. What programs do you want to cut to pay for the Bush tax cuts? They don't have answers for that either. You benefit the most from the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision since you are the party of Big Business, but would you really do the will of the American people who overwhelmingly want that decision overturned? And since the American people want health care reform expanded, why are you trying to repeal it?

And since you are the party of Big Business and Wall Street, are you really going to repeal financial reform as well? You do realize that those companies on Wall Street are the ones who got us into this mess to begin with, right? Repealing that reform just opens the doors for this to happen all over again. If they couldn't regulate themselves the first time around, what makes you think that will change?

My final thought is this: I think we are entering a new era of politics. Increasingly, older people and young people who are still attached to their parent's apron-strings will vote GOP. Why? They're afraid of change. They like the status quo and don't want us to make any progress into the 21st century and beyond. Younger people, who are more willing to adapt to what the world throws at them will vote Dem. There's a reason I prefer the term "progressive" when referring to how I view myself politically. The reason the GOP is putting up such a fight is because they don't want things to change for their children and their grandchildren. Well, you know what? I like change. Quit telling me what I want and what I don't want and let me think for myself. It's my government, too, you know. Quit holding it hostage because you're scared.

Sanity vs. Fear

Well, I've caught up on my sleep from the past weekend, so I feel it's time to crack open the blog and post something about the rally. For those of you who don't watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, or news programs for that matter, there was a small gathering of people in Washington DC this weekend. I've been reading a lot of the media coverage of the event since we left on Saturday for the drive home, and it's been interesting.

First off, there was the sheer size of the crowd. I think the unofficial number has been pegged to be around 215,000 at the moment. And while this was a political rally, whether Stewart will admit to it or not, people were extremely polite. Of course there were people pushing and shoving to get closer to the stage or to get better views. But were they rude about it? No. Did fights break out? I'm sure they did, but nothing got out of hand from what I've heard. It was a polite gathering of moderate people who wanted their government to know they exist and they vote.

I will say I think it was bullocks that the area closest to the stage were for people with special tickets. I can't complain too much, though. We were only about 20 feet behind the barricade between us and that section. We arrived around 9 AM and it was already packed. The signs were all great, properly spelled and grammatically correct. One of my favorite signs in my immediate area said "It's a sad day when our policiticans are comical and I have to take my comedians seriously." I regret not making one that said "See, I can spell. Your tax dollars at work." And I don't like the fact that it was a cell phone dead zone. I couldn't call, text, tweet or do anything on Facebook until about 6 when we finally got out of the city, despite the presence of several AT&T vans.

However, if you focus on the fact that it was an overblown comedy show with a bunch celebrities or as a giant publicity stunt would be to misconstrue the entire event, I think. We are all Americans, whether we are Democrat, Republican, black, white, Christian or Muslim. The vast majority of us are perfectly reasonable people. Just look at the turnout for a rally aimed at a group of disengaged moderates (215,000 for this) vs. the turnout for a rally aimed at an engaged, extreme fringe group (87,000 for Beck's rally). The people want their politicians working together and not pandering to the extreme fringes of their base. And Jon's intentions for the rally aren't that far from this goal. If you've seen his speech at the end of the rally, he says he wanted this to be essentially a rally against the 24 hour news networks who hyperbolize everything and pit one side against the other, with no input from the middle. While it makes for great TV (see: the back-and-forth between Olbermann, Maddow, MSNBC vs. Beck, O'Reilly, Fox News, Limbaugh), it does not aid our political discourse. If all the news networks do is scream at each other that they are right and the other side is wrong, you're not accomplishing anything. Talk to me and try to convince me that you're right. Don't yell at me and call me a socialist just because I believe social welfare programs and universal healthcare are good ideas. Give me evidence of why you're right and I'd be more willing to accept your ideas. I'd also tell you that while I agree with you in some aspects, such as people taking advantage of such systems, that the government is there to legislate and reform broken systems, so if you want people to stop abusing it, vote for someone who will reform. Politics shouldn't be a shouting match to the death.

I know we live in an era that demands instant results from everything, and the news networks don't help that at all. We want our news as it happens, and we want everything analyzed for us so that we don't think for ourselves. Two years is entirely too early to judge Obama's presidency. Everything he has accomplished (health care reform, Wall Street reform, etc.) has been drowned out by the right-wing media saying what he's done are either wrong and need to be repealed or just ignoring them and trying to perpetuate the myth that nothing has been done. Or the left-wing media has been saying, yes, but it's not enough. It's been 2 fucking years! I know he promised a lot during his campaign, but government moves at a snail's pace. The news networks and the internet move at lightning speed and the hyper-polarization of politics is just the knee-jerk reaction the news networks have to the slower pace of government. They take a single story and analyze the living crap out of it. And by analyze, I mean they either have people on with conflicting views and have them duke it out or they have a bunch of yes-men on, play video of the other guys talking and then go on to bash them and their views. Either way, nothing gets accomplished because they really aren't talking about solutions, only why they are right and the other person is wrong.

I think at this point, the parties have been reduced to caricatures of themselves, each portrayed as the people on the fringe left or right, instead of a complex party of people who really range from the middle, moderate area of the political spectrum to the fringe on the left or right. I'll gladly admit that I do politically lean to the left and I consider myself a Democrat, however I would vote for a Republican if I find one with whom I can agree with on the issues. It isn't about what side of the fence you're on, it's about who will get the job done.

And to those people who just think this wasn't something to be taken serious, I remind you that comedy is an important lens through which to see the world. Jesters, you'll remember, were the only ones who were allowed to mock the aristocracy back in the day, and many were counsel to their king. It may be serious work governing a country, but it's important to sit back and have a laugh. It keeps you sane.

Mad Tea Party

As many of my friends know, I'm not a completely crazy liberal. I'm perfectly sane and look logically at politics and most things in general. I see faults with both the Democrats and the Republicans and will vote for whoever I think will do the job properly. I do tend to lean left, but for the most part, I'd consider myself a moderate. I'm pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I want universal healthcare, but only if it's done right. Obamacare is not universal healthcare done right. Look at the UK's system as a model and try to mirror that. I think a poor educational system and a lack of after-school programs for at-risk kids effects crime rates more than having access guns do. I think a moral war on drugs is a joke. Telling someone not to do something makes them want to do it even more. It's human nature. The same goes for sex education. You can't have an abstinence-only program. It just makes kids want to have sex even more. And if all they're taught about it is abstinence, it just increases their chances of contracting an STD or getting pregnant. Surprisingly enough, I'm also pro-death penalty. I don't want my tax money to go towards keeping certain criminals alive. If we were to, again, have a better educational system and after-school programs, I think we wouldn't have so many criminals to begin with.

As an aside, here's what I think of the rise of Christine O'Donnell. By now, many jokes have been made about her being anti-masturbation and having "dabbled" in witchcraft. I think the focus on her masturbation comments is ridiculous, personally. But are the left-wing bloggers that desperate to discredit her that they are stooping to this level? The fact that she's a Tea Party candidate should be enough! Attack her on policies, not crazy comments she's made on MTV and Bill Maher. For that matter, don't bring up the witchcraft thing at all. It's a religion just like every other, so making fun of her for this is the equivalent of making fun of someone who's Jewish but dabbled in Buddhism. And don't bring it up if you're arguing about how she's anti-Muslim. It just makes you look stupid and a hypocrite. This isn't Rand Paul. You can't call him out for saying he'd vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act and then saying he supports a private business' right to segregate and discrminate. Find some dirt like that and then go after her.

That being said, I can partly sympathize with the Tea Party. I 100% agree that there should be term limits on all politicians in Congress. Both parties are guilty of taking money and gifts from lobbyists. They are more concerned with lining their own pockets and getting re-elected to keep the money and gifts coming to really do the will of the people. I still cannot believe that the Supreme Court sided with corporations earlier this year when they said corporations can unlimitly donate to political campaigns. At this point, We The People don't really matter. It's asinine for me to donate anything to my candidate if a company can donate millions to the other candidate just so the company can have that candidate in their back pocket. I 100% agree that the government shouldn't be spending money they don't have. They are spending away my future and the future of any children I may have down the line. However, that's where the sympathy ends.

I cannot get behind a movement that is filled to the brim with neo-cons. If they are fighting for the people to "take back America," why are they alienating the sane, sensible moderates who are the majority of the American people? Anyone who has a basic understanding of statistics knows what a bell curve is. The Tea Party is the fringe on the far right side of the bell curve (-2 SD in the image on the right). The otherside of the spectrum is inhabited by the crazy hippy liberals (+2 SD). Statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of people reside somewhere in the happy middle and lean to the left or right.

I do not see the Tea Party as an answer to the collective woes of our nation that they are fighting for. I see it as a cycle we are now in. It goes back for generations, I'm sure. But I think it's recently become hyperbolic and polarizing. One side will win control of the White House and Congress. The other side refuses to cooperate with those in power because they are sore losers. The other side will then spin the fact that those in power didn't accomplish anything or weren't acting with the values of the people in mind. They will then win back the White House and/or Congress and the cycle will begin anew. Is this really the way to govern? Do you really think that if the Tea Party makes any headway in the political system that they would change things and break this cycle? I'd say definitely not. They are firmly on the extreme right of the political spectrum at the moment. However, if they were to lay off the crazy pills and try to start appealing to some sort of middle ground and not pander to the extremists on either sides, they may be onto something that I could agree with. If they can gain ground with the people in the middle and those in the middle that lean to the left, they may actually do what they want, and if term limits get imposed, they will get America back to being ruled by the people, for the people.

I wanna do bad things with Eric Northman

I really need to have a pop-culture moment. Sorry, but I may burst if I don't get this off my chest.

My undying love for Eric aside, it's time I feel I should discuss what has happened this season on True Blood so far. With only 5 episodes left, so I need to make sense of it all to see if I can figure out where it is all going. There is entirely too much going on to be able to do a recap of the entire season up until now, but may I suggest going to Television Without Pity if you would like to read a recap of the entire show. Season 1 and 2 are also out on DVD, so you get get them through Netflix. But you may not want to read through this if you want to completely stay out of the loop, there are some spoilers.

First thing is first, though. May I just air out my single grievance against this show? Please please please STOP introducing characters and plot lines that aren't in the book series until later. I know a lot of people who watch this show have read all the books by now, so you need to chop and dice the plot from the source material so that it stays fresh and interesting. But what you did last year was excellent. While Sookie, Bill, Jason and Eric where away in Texas, it was great seeing the maenad plot from the book fleshed out. In the book, Sookie gets tore up by the maenad, heals, and goes away to Texas to help find a missing vampire. In the books, it is the king of Texas' "brother." When Sookie returns from Texas, she is invited to an orgy. The book ends with the house the party was in being burned to the ground and the maenad escaping. In the show, they are looking for Eric's maker, which worked out because it helped with Eric's character development. When the gang returns from Texas, they stumble on Maryann's (the maenad) "wedding" and it ends with Sam killing her. All in all, it wasn't that great a departure from the books and it kept the show interesting. But this season, we are focusing so much on identity that it's taking away characters and plot lines that you don't read about until later in the series. I know what they are building up to with the introduction of Claudine and Maryann and Lorena asking her "What are you?" But we shouldn't get the answer to that until the 7th book! And Russell and Sophie-Anne don't even get married. In the books, she marries the king of Arkansas, and that doesn't even happen until the 6th book. Hell, we don't even meet Sophie-Anne until the 6th book. And Crystal? I know what she is and I know what will happen with Jason, but that doesn't happen until the 4th book. Are the writers that desperate to keep the viewers guessing that they are pillaging the other books? If they keep doing that, they will have stripped the books down for future seasons and there won't be much left for them to work with. That's really what I'm concerned about. I love the books. A lot. I love the show because even though I know what will happen with certain characters, they mix it up enough that I'm not sure how they will reach that endpoint, or even if it will be the same endpoint as the books. If you're planning on having any sort of longevity for this show without alienating people who've read the books (which I think is a large portion of their loyal viewers by now), it's got to stop. I know I wouldn't be so riled up if I were like other people who haven't read the books. They are blissfully unaware of what's really going on.

And there are some BIG spoilers coming up, so don't say I didn't warn you. I can't emphasize that enough...

So, knowing that the writers and Alan Ball wanted to focus on identity this season, here are my predictions. First, Sookie has fairy blood in her. That's why she doesn't have a blood type. That's why Russell was questioning Bill about his research into Sookie's lineage at the queen's behest. Claudine? She's Sookie's fairy-godmother. That magical place Sookie went in her dream? Those were all fairies. The pond? The fairies' world. Remember, Claudine said it was a lot bigger than it looked. That's why Claudine wanted Sookie to go with her. That thing Sookie does with that white glow and repelling people she was angry with? That's her fairy blood at work. Did you notice that the water Sookie drank has the same white glow? So did the fairies as they left into the pond. My guess is that the water was an infusion of more fairy blood so that she could heal. That's why Claudine didn't want Sookie to let the vampires "take her light." All that whispering between Hadley and Eric? Hadley knew, so she told him. That's what was so interesting. Why could Bill stay outside in the sunlight? My guess is that the large amount of fairy blood he just ingested allowed him to do that, as well as maybe partial immunity to silver and other ills for vampires. Why else would the queen be so interested in her? In the books, fairies are like catnip to vampires. I'm sure they are going to give fairy blood all sorts of magical abilities in relation to vampires. Since Claudine was referring to light, which I'm sure she was talking about blood, it would make a nice yin-yang relationship with the darkness we associate with vampires. I'm hoping that they will stick with the book in this aspect, but Bill and Sookie will break up. We don't find out until much later that Bill was sent by Sophie-Anne to seduce her so that the queen could use Sookie's telepathy to her advantage. My guess why they will break up in the series? Sophie-Anne sent Bill still, but this time it was to take advantage of her blood and it's capabilities. Whether or not they will reveal this in the current season, we will see. But Bill and Sookie breaking up is pretty crucial for the plot lines next season to have any similarity at all to the fourth book and beyond. Sorry, Bill fans.

So what about Jason? Well, Crystal is a were-panther. That's why she was sniffing the air when she was outside with Jason and knew it was time for her to leave. With only 5 episodes left, it does look like they are going to leave the were-panther plot to next season for the most part. They won't be able to truly do it justice if they just cram it in here at the end. With that same focus on identity, we've seen Jason go from a womanizing man-boy to someone aspiring to be a cop and thinking he's in love. I think they will end it with him finding out what she really is and then pick it back up next season with plot line from the book.

I really can't make many predictions about what will happen with Sam and his family. There's nothing I can base it off from the books since it's not there. It's the same reason I can't say what will happen with Lafayette and Jesus or Jessica. But I can say I think a great way to end this season is to have Sookie driving home after her first night back at Merlotte's and coming up on a very naked Eric and him asking her "Do I know you?" and then roll the end credits. Or maybe on her way to the police station after getting the news about Jason being missing. That would be a nice way to bookend the season. Start it with a vampire kidnapping after a marriage proposal, end it with a missing person and a naked amnesiac vampire.

Lost in Translation

Before I delve any deeper into what the Bible does and doesn't say, a dear friend of mine suggested that I should focus a little on the problem with translations. More specifically, I will focus on the bias that can be imbued on the final product and the fact that it is easy to wrongly translate things.

To begin with, unless you are fluent in ancient Greek and Hebrew and have the original manuscripts in front of you, it will be impossible to correctly translate what was originally recorded. Seeing as the original manuscripts would be thousands of years old by now, chances are slim that many survive to this day. And the copies that do exist are so different that it's difficult to say which the most accurate. Just take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. These are a collection of manuscripts found in a series of caves near the Dead Sea, which have been dated to be from 150 BCE to 70 CE. As such, they are the oldest surviving copies of the Bible. But there are discrepancies between what scholars have been able to translate based off these scrolls and what we have in the Bible today. The scrolls contain passages from almost every book in the Old Testament, so you can easily pull up the accepted modern day text and compare it to what was written on these scrolls. These scrolls usually uphold what we find in the Masoretic Text, which is essentially the Hebrew Bible.

One of the more interesting deviations between the Dead Sea Scrolls and what we find in modern Bibles is a few verses from Psalms 22. This is a passage that Christians can look at as a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixtion. In the Contemporary English Version of the Bible, verse 16 reads "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." In the K'tuvim, you would find the corresponding verse in the book of Tehillim, verse 17, "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet." However, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it reads "Like a lion, they pin my hands and feet.” For the sake of being thorough I went through older English translations to see if I could pinpoint when it went from "pinning" to "piercing." The earliest English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (completed in the 1380s), but I could not find a complete version that includes this passage. And please enlighten me if you do know where this passage is located in the Wycliffe Bible. So, strike one. I think it should be important to note that in the 1490s, Oxford professor Thomas Linacre decided to learn Greek. After comparing what he read in Greek to the Latin Vulgate (the 5th century Latin version of the text), he came to the conclusion that "Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians." I was able to find a copy of the John Rogers version, which is much more complete than the Wycliffe version. And it does say "pierced" and not "pinned." So as of 1537, this was the official translation: "They pierced my hands and my feet, I might have told all my bones: as for them, they stood staring and looking upon me."

But you may be thinking to yourself "What's the big difference? Aren't pierced and pinned synonyms?" As a noun, a pin is something you would use to fasten something with, usually something long and narrow. However, as a verb, it has a completely different connotation. I could pin you down on a cross with something other than a spike, like a piece of rope or wire. Piercing, on the other hand, is defined much more violently than pinning. It specifically says that a hole is made when something is pierced, whereas there is no mention of a hole when something is pinned. When I think of pinning something, I think of a corsage being pinned to a shirt. When I think of piercing something, I think of body piercings, which would be much closer to what happened to Jesus than pinning. Piercing sounded more violent and painful than pinning, so it's now favored as the correct translation of the text. The Christian translators decided that in order to have this as a prophecy about Jesus, all they had to do was change that one word and it fit. They sound so similar, what's the harm, right? You should note that if you were to look up pierce and pin in the dictionary, you would not see them listed as synonyms of each other.

And that, dear readers, is how easy it is to change things in order to fit your religious views. Next time, more of what Jesus taught us as interpreted by yours truly. But why should you listen to a word I say? Afterall, the whole point of this post was that it's easy to read something and interpret it as you wish. Well, let's just say that I'm trying to put a different view of Christian ideology and stories out there. Stay tuned for more developments.

Oh, how I love a good psychological thriller

Well, this week I finally got around to seeing a couple of movies. I saw Despicable Me, which I know I said I wouldn't see. But the more previews I saw, the more I wanted to go see it. Not to mention, it has good word-of-mouth right now. I am a sucker for kid's movies, I'll admit to that. A good chunk of my DVD collection are Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks Animation movies, not to mention all the Harry Potter movies. It was a really cute movie. The minions were adorable, and it showed that even the most dastardly person can have a heart of gold. I can appreciate that because apparently I am a dastardly person (she typed jokingly).

Anyways, I adored Inception. I think Christopher Nolan is increasingly becoming one of my favorite directors. Memento I think is being overlooked now that he has a couple of splashy, big-budget movies (the Batman reboot and Inception). For those of you who have only ever seen those 3 movies by him, you are doing yourself a disservice. It is a giant mind-fuck, which I love. You'd need to watch it at least twice to be able to fully wrap your head around it. Same with Insomnia, another great Nolan flick. Inception definitely follows this tradition of multiple viewings. Honestly, if you didn't get the ending you weren't even paying attention. I love that Leo's wife's name was Mal (Latin for evil). There was also character named Eames. The Eames' were a husband-wife team of architects and furniture designers. Ellen Page's character's name was Ariadne, who was the woman who helped Theseus kill the Minotaur in Greek myth. Once you see the movie, you can see why I got a little bit of joy out the character names. It definitely fits the characters. For those that don't know the basic plot, Leo and his team are hired to plant an idea in someone's mind, whereas they are typically hired to extract information from in their dreams. The premise is sound enough. Theoretically speaking, it is easier to obtain information from the subconscious mind than the conscious one. That's why a trained, professional hypnotist can be potent. And I'm not talking about the gimmicky ones at conferences. And Leo's character described what the result of inception quite eloquently that an idea implanted in the subconscious can spread like a virus once it's there, which is a pretty accurate statement. I also loved the idea of totems, which are objects they used to tell if they were in the dream world or the real world.

All in all, I'd recommend both flicks. I think a user review on Yahoo was pretty spot on when it that while it isn't a truly excellent film, it's great in that it isn't a regular summer popcorn movie and it requires you to think and use your brain.

I think that's why I've enjoyed his Batman reboot so much. They are exploring the human aspect of the superhero and supervillain and their psyches and their motivations. It's not "I'm good, you're bad. Let's fight." I've read recently that Nolan has been approached to do with the Superman universe what he's done with the Batman universe. I'm not 100% on board with this yet considering Superman actually has the superpowers that Batman lacks. But I have a feeling he will explore lonliness and abandonment. We will see. I'm sure he'll do something great with it.

Next time, I'll be back on topic. I've been working on Bible translations. And let me tell you, it's been hard finding old English bibles.

Part 1 on Christianity (The Beatitudes)

I will preface this post by informing you of why I'm writing this. Most people who know me know that I'm pretty much an atheist. Deism is a better word to describe my relationship with God. I was raised Lutheran, however I lost my faith back in my late teens. While I still believe the Big Man is up there, I don't see any benefit to organized religion. I tell you this because I have volunteered to help at my church's VBS (vacation Bible school) this week. I still call it my church because if I have a sudden epiphany, I know they will welcome me back with open arms. It's nice to feel productive during the day seeing as I work nights 99% of the time. I really can't remember why I said I'd help, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't come up with a logical reason to not to. In some twisted way, it's interesting to see the indoctrination of young minds. Yes, I'm a sick individual, but that's my psychology training kicking in. I really feel like I've been behind enemy lines all week. Now, onto the bulk of this post.

What set me off was a lady that I'm working with this week. We've been getting along great, don't get me wrong. But something she said just kind of crawled under my skin and is festering there. This year the focus has been on Paul and his ministry. The stories have been focusing on his travels and how he was arrested for teaching others about Jesus. The kids were on the other side of the room listening to the teacher, so they didn't hear her. The teacher said something about it being nice that we don't have to worry about being put in jail for talking about Jesus. But she just made some snide comment about how it may not be that way for much longer. That just got me to thinking about how Christians these days keep saying that the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian values, which in turn got me thinking about what Jesus really taught us and how his teachings are being hijacked to serve these people's desires. It mostly pissed me off simply because religious intolerance has led us to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust and other innumerable events.

So, what did Jesus really teach us in the Gospel lessons? The first couple of stories are about him after his birth are him being baptized and his temptation by the devil. There isn't much to learn from these stories, as they just show that he is the son of God and that he can resist temptation from even the devil himself. Soon afterwards he started healing the masses and spreading the word about God's kingdom. His first glowing speech was the Sermon on the Mount, home of the oft-quoted Beatitudes.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake." (Matthew 5:3-11).

I think that the meaning of this part of the sermon is that if you are downtrodden, your faith in God will ultimately make your pain and suffering worth it, as you will receive God's blessing and St. Peter will let you through the pearly gates into heaven. Not a bad moral to this story.

I do think one of the more interesting Beatitudes is the one regarding peacemakers, who will be called his children. What do you think Jesus would think of all the wars that have been carried out in his name? If peacemakers are going to be called children of God, shouldn't Christians strive for peace and avoid wars?

But my all-time favorite Beatitude that illustrates the hypocrisy of the modern church is the one about being humble. If the meek inherit the earth, what would Jesus have to say about the evangelical mega-churches? They get millions and millions of dollars, and yet most of it goes to the upkeep of their monstrosities of churches and other frivolous things. You know the Touchdown Jesus I wrote about last week? That church paid a quarter of a million to build a 62 foot tall statue. There's a group on Facebook petitioning the church to use the money that has been donated and money they were going to spend on rebuilding and putting it to better use. It has over 10,000 fans after a week. The church says that it was fully insured, so it's going to be getting money from it's insurance company anyways to pay for a new one, yet they are asking for donations. Do you really think that money will go towards the new statue? Most likely not. The people who operate Solid Rock Church and other mega-churches run them like businesses. It's a house of worship. Operate them as such, not some scheme to get you rich. Jesus lived in poverty. I'm not suggesting everyone live in poverty. I just think that it would be more Christ-like for the pastors and the people who operate these churches to not be making 6-figure incomes, live in mansions and drive expensive luxury cars. That is in no way humble. And don't give me this bullshit about how Jesus wants us to be successful. There is a definite line between success and excess, and these folks have crossed it. Jesus wanted us to use our success to help the unfortunate, not make extravagent purchases. You're supposed to tithe 10% of your income to your church, but that usually only ends up paying to upkeep costs. Like the Touchdown Jesus money, a lot of your discretionary spending is put to better use by making charitable donations. Remember those ubiquitous "WWJD" bracelets? I think that's what Jesus would do if he had any amount of money. Use what he needs to live comfortably and give the rest to charity.

Anyways, this is only part one of a series of posts on Christianity and why I think it's gone awry. Come back for more later.

A quick thought about the oil spill and government oversight

I hope that there's going to be a massive overhaul of MMS and the government's oversight of the oil industry. I'm glad that Obama announced that he is naming another czar that the Republicans hate so much to oversee the oil industry. The people who don't want the government to overreach and have an oversight committee for every aspect of American life I think are the idealists, not me. We live in a very twisted, greedy era. If the government doesn't step in and tell people running industries and businesses what they can and cannot do, they will get away with bloody murder without so much a slap on the wrist. Deregulation and lax oversight is what got us into the hot economic mess we are in now. Deregulation lets people like Bernie Madoff get away with gigantic cases of fraud. Sure, there are corrupt people in government as well. Case in point, the cozy relationship between MMS and the oil companies. But I think as a whole, the people at the top of industry and business pose a greater threat to the American people than the government does. I'm probably going to be called a socialist for verbalizing this, but I can live with that. I'd rather have the government looking out for me like they're supposed to rather than watching them sit back and let all hell break loose.

BP spill microblog

I've stayed away from this as long as I could. Last week was an outrageous week for BP. First they bought the term "oil spill" on Google so that way their website and their response efforts are at the top of the page. Go ahead and try it if you haven't yet. Right there at the top, in a pale yellow box: www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse. And then while I was watching Rachel Maddow last week she had a story about the fine print on the permit that BP filed in order to drill at the Deepwater Horizon. Apparently their paperwork said that they weren't worried about the impact on the coastline because they thought that it was too far off shore for it to be a threat if there was a catastrophic event leading to an oil spill, and therefore didn't prepare any contingency plans. They listed a walrus as an animal that could be potentially threatened in the case of a spill, for Christ's sake. Then she revealed that BP's "in case of emergency" person had died several years prior to them applying for this permit. Not to mention that several other people listed had bad contact information. Seriously?!? And now I read today that BP had some emails circulating about the executives disregarding advice about safety 6 days prior to the explosion. Again: seriously?!?

And now I'm starting to hear that the British are unhappy with the way our government is dealing with BP and the beating their public image is taking. I'm sorry, UK. If it would make you feel better, we can set up an oil rig in the English Channel that is managed by, oh I don't know, let's say Shell. They're an American-based oil company. Now let's blow it up and let over 50,000 barrels of oil spill out into the English Channel, ruining your fisheries, beaches, tourism, not to mention the toll on your wildlife. Then you can tell us that we are being too harsh on BP.

But a silver lining to this whole debacle is that I hope we will finally invest in clean energy and better and more efficient ways to handle a crisis of this magnitude.

On a lighter note, the statue known to many in this area of the world as either Touchdown Jesus or Big Butter Jesus is no longer with us. The image to the left is of what he looked like before he burned to the ground. To those of you not from Southeastern Ohio, this is a 6-story tall statue of Jesus. He looks like a referee signaling a touchdown, hence the name Touchdown Jesus. He got the nickname Big Butter Jesus because he looks like he's carved out of butter. Well, it looks as if lightning struck him last night, causing him to burn. But honestly, how could they not see this coming? He's a statue made of fiberglass and styrofoam with a metal framework. He was just begging to be hit by lightning. But don't worry, kiddies. He'll rise again in 3 days. OK, maybe not that soon. But word on the street is that the people at the church are already planning his resurrection. And now let's see the progression:

First, a flaming Jesus. Then, his metal skeleton:

True Blood is back!!

I started the last post with a beauty note, and I'll do the same for this one. I finally have figured out the trick to having a manicure last longer than a couple days. Normally if I give myself a manicure, it only lasts a couple days, three at the most. I'm not about to pay to get my nails done at the salon every week just so I can get something that lasts. Anyways, it's nothing fancy, but I got to thinking about why when I used to get acrylic nails the polish lasted a couple weeks. Well, they buff the hell out of your nails before they even put on the nails, then buff the acrylics. Well, lo and behold, it's kept the polish from having any major chips for a week now. And let me just sing the praises of China Glaze. It's a couple bucks cheaper than OPI and I think it has a better selection of colors. How many shades of cherry red cremes can you come up with, OPI? Seriously? The color here is called Sexy Silhouette and it reminds me of the OPI color Kinky in Helsinki, which they sadly discontinued.

Anyways, my favorite show in the entire universe started it's last 3rd season last night. Yes, True Blood is finally back on the air. And before it even started airing, I read somewhere that it's been renewed for a 4th season already. (SPOILERS: a season of Eric not having a memory and being decidedly un-Eric will be great. That's at least if they keep that aspect of the 4th book.) I will admit that I'm not a huge fan of first couple episodes of the past seasons. But they are necessary to move forward the plot of the season. Last night, being the first, set up the basic plots. Sam is on the hunt to get to know his birth family. Eric and Queen Sophie-Anne need to sell a shitload of V via Lafayette to get the magister off their back. Tara is extremely depressed because Eggs is dead. Sookie enlists Jessica to try and find Bill (who's been kidnapped and taken to Mississippi). And we get a very brief introduction to the new group of supernatural creatures we get this season: werewolves. In the countless articles I've read about this season, I have some theories. I've read that the person who kidnaps Bill in the books isn't the one who did it in the show. So that means Lorena isn't the kidnapper. Whoever did, uses werewolves as lackeys and is based in Mississippi because I know we get introduced to King Russell. I hear we do find out who did it next week, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that King Russell or his husband did it to get to Sookie, much like Queen Sophie-Anne did in the books. I also know that they are finally giving Pam a more recurring role. I love Pam. Aside from Eric, she's my favorite vampire. And the brief glimpse of the werewolves has made me happy. They are happily using real wolves. Let's do a side-by-side comparison.

This is a True Blood werewolf:








This is a Twilight werewolf:










One is on a movie budget and looks horrible. The other is on a TV budget. Yes, it's HBO, but it's still a smaller budget than a movie budget. I will say that the werewolves in Twilight are required to do a lot more than they need to do on True Blood. That's were CGI comes in handy, but couldn't they have made them a little more realistic?

Yes, I'm very anti-Twilight. It's horrible. The books were good. The movies are just simply awful.

In other news, another week also means another Doctor Who. It was a rather good episode. Nothing horribly memorable, but good. A friend and I thought at first the auto-pilot program was the Master. I am looking forward to what I'm sure is the first part of another 2-episode arc. The same friend has a theory that the crack in the universe is the bubble that the Doctor put Gallifrey and the other Timelords in, which is about to burst open and bring the Time Wars upon us again. Seeing as this is towards the end of this series, it makes a lot of sense, as these will be the final 2 episodes. It sets up a great new series. It also makes sense if you look back at the episodes with the Silurians ("I'm the last of my species." "No you're not. I'm the last of my species and I know how that sits in your heart.") and the Venice episode (Signora Calvierri guilting the Doctor with the extinction of her species from Saturnyne). They are amping up the guilt on the Doctor for the extinction of the Time Lords. She also made the brilliant realization that the TARDIS is getting slowly more pale. It had a nice amber glow towards the beginning and is now bleaching out. What this means, I'm sure we will find out.

And in World Cup news, the US surprisingly held it's own against England. Yes, my friends, I'm a Yank and I will always choose the US over England. I'm sure Green will never hear the end of it during the tournament and after when he returns home. I will say that those damn vuvuzela are extremely annoying. It sounds like a hive of angry bees in that stadium! I'm just glad I'm not there!

What's new in the world?

Well, first thing's first. I have red hair again. In indirect light, it's a reddish brown. But man is it red in sunlight. Of course my mother abhores it, but I love it. Yes, I'm a fake ginger. Although, when I hear that term, I think of the Weasleys and orange hair, not a true shade of red. But I digress. The picture to the left is the color I dyed it, and it's pretty accurate. It isn't the fire engine red it was for most of last year, thanks to Manic Panic. But that stuff washed out easily. I had to dye it every 2 weeks! That was a lot of work just for hair color. On a side note, if I had a job where I could get away with crazy color hair (think Joss Stone. Black with crazy color highlights), I would be extremely happy. I think the folks at work would flip out if I were to show up one day like that. To be honest, it's either crazy hair or an assload of tattoos.

In pop culture news, my Twitter feed was a-flutter with praise for Lady Gaga's new video for "Alejandro." I finally got a chance to watch it when I got to work this afternoon. "Alejandro" is quite easily my favorite song off "The Fame Monster" so I had high expectations. Well, it was simply awesome. I will say that there were a ton of nods to Madonna. It just screamed "Vogue" and "Don't Cry For Me Argentina." Not to mention the gun bra that reminded me of the cone bra of Madonna fame or the religious imagery ("Like a Prayer," anyone?). And this is a sad commentary on the state of pop music in America when I say that when I first heard her and saw the video for "Just Dance" I thought she was a Brit. And it's not because of her stage name. American pop music is such a vacuum I didn't think there was anyone innovative left and that the record industry sucked all the talent out. The main reason I avoid pop music is because I feel like the artists are all cookie-cutter clones of each other. And I use the term "artist" loosely concerning most music these days anyways. To me, an artist, whether it be music or painting, needs to do something to push the boundaries of what they are doing and to do something new and creative. Granted, Lady Gaga is a rehash of Madonna. But people remember Madonna as we come up on the 30th anniversary of "Like a Virgin." Are people really going to remember Miley Cyrus, The Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift and all the clones that have come out in recent years the way Lady Gaga will be remembered? Of course, time will tell. But I suspect that as long as she continues doing her high art videos and doesn't have a Britney-esque meltdown, she may continue to have a thriving career. I for one enjoy the outrageous outfits she wears. It's her persona as Lady Gaga. Take away the costumes and she'd sadly be just as bland as the others. But with them, she's doing something creative and new. She's a breath of fresh air for me in a bland world of same-old, same-old pop music.

Keep up the awesome work, Lady Gaga.

XOXO, your little monster, Becky :)

Long time, no post

Wow, a lot can happen in the 2+ months since I've had time for an actual post. I didn't even brush up on the BP oil spill.

And that's the big story that's been all over the place, as rightly it should be. It's an environmental catastrophe which has easily eclipsed the only other catastrophe this can be measured against (Exxon Valdez). I was planning on taking my vacation this year and go down and volunteer to help clean up, but apparently they are all frowning upon people travelling so that they can volunteer (Locals only, folks. Pack up your shit and go home). I could go on and on and on about how the government agency that should have prevented this was in the back pocket of Big Oil. I could go on and on and on about how we really need to go green and get rid of our dependency on oil, whether it's imported or not. But this has been going on for 2 months now. If you've paid any attention to the news here in the US, you'd have heard all this already many times over. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon when the 24 hour news networks are constantly discussing this. Well, maybe with the exception of Faux, I mean Fox, News.

The other big news event has been the Israeli flotilla raid. It's already fading from the news here, which is a shame. In general, I believe that the Israel/Palestine conflict is a prime example of why you should never, ever mix politics and religion. Especially if you're country is a holy city for 3 major world religions. Neither side will want to play nice with the other, so unfortunately this is just another chapter in an extremely long book. I will however point out that I think it is criminal what Israel did. Attacking aid workers trying to help the people you are persecuting in international waters is as criminal as it gets, I think.

On a side note, I'm going to try and not make this such a political blog. While I am passionate about politics and current events, most of my energy sadly goes to pop culture.

I had the great fortune of getting tickets to see Muse when they roll into town in October. I am very much looking forward to that. If you had told me at the beginning of the year I was going to see them twice within 8 months, I would have laughed at you.

SPOILERS! At least they are if you don't use a proxy here in the US and catch up that way...

Also, Dr. Who has returned. Although we are now currently 3 episodes away from the end of this series, I will say I've enjoyed it. I think the most memorable episodes for me were the 2 episode arc for the Weeping Angels, "Amy's Choice" (the one with the dreams) and "Vincent and the Doctor." I'm not afraid to admit that I cried towards the end of that one when they were in the art museum. For such a disturbed man to feel even the slightest bit appreciated for what he thought was going to end up being a wasteful pursuit was just touching.

Glee is still going strong, which I completely adore. I'm a total Gleek, I know. But I was a music geek in high school (choir all 4 years, color guard/marching band for 2 years). It almost validates me as being a cool kid. LOL!

And alas, Family Guy is now done for the year. I was disappointed that they decided to have "Something Something Dark Side" as the season finale, especially considering it had already been out on DVD since December. On the bright side, it means that the next box set will be out shortly. I will soon be able to enjoy my favorite cartoon family without the bleeps.

But it does also mean that my favorite TV show of all is back on shortly. Yes, True Blood starts back up on Sunday. I read through the latest book in about a day last month when it came out. They just keep getting better and better. I took part in the Ultimate Truebie fan event last week, which just added fuel to my impatience fire. It was wonderful seeing all my favorite TV characters up on the big screen. That Alexander Skarsgård is one sexy man. And now Joe Manganiello is joining as Alcide. Mmmmm...a vampire for the nights and a werewolf for the days...

Sorry, I need to go wipe the drool off my chin...

And I'm back. On the movie front, there has been a definite lack of decent movies so far this summer. I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but I have the nagging suspicion it will be very similar to the first one. Robin Hood didn't look all that appealing, just a rehash of Gladiator from the exact same director/star team. I did recently see Shrek Forever After, and I will say it was a lot better than the 3rd and almost as good as the first. Prince of Persia doesn't look to appealing either, just another special effects bonanza. I was pretty disappointed with Sex and the City 2. While it was nice seeing the girls in a setting other than Manhattan, I felt it was really contrived. I also didn't like the way they treated Muslim customs in regards to women's apparel and public decency. I feel I would have rather seen the girls transported to somewhere else fashionable, like London or Milan (they've been to Paris, and frankly I think Paris movies are overdone). This past weekend saw the release of Get Him to the Greek, which I feel I can do without until it's out on DVD.

Let's see...what else is there this summer...

The A-Team - Pass.
The Karate Kid - I'll probably go see this one, even though it's remake. I love Jackie Chan and Jaden Smith I think will grow up to inherit his father's career.
Jonah Hex - the only comic book heroes that ever deserve to be put on the big screen are the big 3: Batman, Superman and Spider Man.
Toy Story 3 - I wouldn't miss this one for the world. Pixar never fails to disappoint.
Grown Ups - You'd think this was a Judd Apatow flick with all the big-name comedians in this one. It could go either way.
Knight and Day - My disdain for Tom Cruise aside, it looks like it could be ok.
Eclipse - Yea, I'll see this when hell freezes over.
The Last Airbender - Pass. M. Night Shamalamadingdong hasn't had a good movie since The Sixth Sense.
Inception - Finally saw a trailer for this today. It looks like it could be pretty good. I do enjoy Leonardo DiCaprio flicks most of the time.
Dinner for Schmucks - I'm a sucker for stupid humor sometimes, but this one I will definitely be seeing.
Salt - Angelina Jolie in another action/spy movie. Yawn.
Despicable Me - I have no clue what this is about. The trailers don't help at all (not to mention that they've been plugging this since the winter Olympics), and I'm not about to dish out $10 just so I can see what the hell is going on.
Eat Pray Love - The book was good, and it's about travel and food. I'm in.

This is in no way a complete list of the movies that are coming out this summer. I haven't even done the research to see if there are any good indies coming out this summer.

Alas, my time is up here at work. Time to retreat to the homestead and catch some Z's. Tomorrow I hit up the pool and start working on the tan.

An Education on Easter

I love Christianity partly because Christians celebrate stolen holidays.

Easter and Christmas are perfect examples. Christmas celebrates Jesus' birth on December 25th of every year, even though most Biblical scholars will tell you they have no idea when Jesus was born. You know what else is celebrated around then? The winter solstice, when the nights start getting longer. The harvest is done for the year and it's time to hunker down for the cold winter ahead. A common practice in the olden days was to burn a Yule log. Sound familiar? So should the fact that Germanic pagans decorated their houses with evergreen, holly and mistletoe.

Easter has a similar story. While Jesus' death is given a definite time frame (the Friday after Passover), it still has a lot of stolen symbology. Easter gets it's name from Ostara, which is the name of the neopagan celebration of the vernal equinox. Ostara gets it's name from the Germanic pagan goddess Ēostre. They are pretty much used interchangebly. If you dig a little to find out who she is, you'd find that she is the goddess of spring and fertility. Symbols associated with her are rabbits and eggs, symbols of fertility. Again, sound familiar?

There are westernized versions of most of the 8 Wiccan sabbats if you think about it. Halloween = Samhain, a celebration of your ancestors. It's no coincidence that the Catholic All Saint's Day is Nov. 1st and subsquently the Hispanic Día de los Muertos is Nov. 2nd. Imbolc = Groundhog's Day, the longest day of the winter. The days will always start to get shorter after that, so no matter what Punxsutawney Phil tells you, spring will always be a few weeks away. Beltane = May Day, the beginning of of the planting season. Litha, Lammas and Mabon don't have any modern day holidays that have been commandeered by Christianity.

The reason there are so many parallels between these pagan celebrations and Christian/Western holidays is because they wanted to ease the converted pagans into their new religion.

There's your history lesson for the day.

People always wonder why I have a problem with Christianity. I don't have a problem with the religion at all. It's the Christians that I have a problem with. I think at the heart of it all, Christianity is about wanting to make people better and have them act kindly towards others. It gives them morals and values to believe in and for you to use to guide your life. That's a good thing. I just don't like the way Christians behave with people who think differently from them. Religious intolerance led us to the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Holocaust. I can't claim to be a Christian when I believe that Jesus would not want his followers to have this "our way or the highway" mentality that I feel they currently have. To me, it was stiffling going to church towards the end. I'm a woman of science and reason. I was tired of them trying to convince me to abandon my belief in evolution, which is based on evidence that I can see, for blind faith. To quote Robert Langdon in "Angels and Demons," "Faith is a gift I have yet to receive." And I refuse to associate myself with a religion that is so intolerate of homosexuality and base this intolerance on a few Bible verses, when these verses can plainly be seen as outdated when read in context. I mean, there's one where homosexual behavior is condemned because the writer was in an area still heavily under the spell of Greco-Roman gods and near temples for fertility gods and goddesses. These people he was condemning were simply worshipping their gods, and since they weren't his god he condemned them and their behavior to sway people towards his religion. Long story short, religion in general has evolved with us and everyone in the past has been pretty sure that their religion is the right one, so what makes me so sure that Christianity is the right one for me? Nothing.

Happy Easter/Ēostre/Fertility Symbols Day!

Huh?

Can someone please explain to me how the healthcare bill equals any of these?

(Definitions taken from dictionary.com)

Communism:
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Socialism:
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Fascism:
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

The GOP is just throwing around these scary-sounding words and not paying any attention to the meaning of these words they nonchalantly throw out at the masses. And since the average American is an idiot (sorry, but we collectively have the IQ of a rock. Either get over that fact or get an education), they hear them and think "I think I remember learning about that in grade school. Isn't that bad? Does this mean I should be against this bill?" without figuring out what the words themselves actually mean. Sorry, but semantics matter. It's not that surprising to me that people don't care about it anymore since we live in an era where we have shortened our speech patterns to outside the arena of texting. To me, saying healthcare reform is any of these words is the semantic version of "Let's eat Grandma" vs. "Let's eat, Grandma." There's a big difference there. And it's only by the placement of a comma do we go from cannibilism to stating that it's time to have a meal with your grandmother.

A little side note: If you're really against this so-called socialism, I will gladly take your Social Security checks and Medicare benefits off your hands when you retire. We've had "socialized" retirement and healthcare for decades now. Didn't think about that one, did you? If you're already retired, I'll take your Social Security checks any day to supplement my income. I need to pay off student loans. :)

Here's a blog post that I felt sums up my feelings towards the GOP at the moment, as well:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/round-up-or-down-house-members-react-to-dems-knew-plan-to-pass-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa

The Democrats really aren't any better as far as party politics is concerned. They are pretty much taking the stance that since they are in a majority, they are just going to simply do what they want since they have Obama to rubberstamp what they pass and not consult with the GOP. This is not the way to govern our country, people! There needs to be public discourse between parties so that the bill really is for the people since the vast majority of people in this country identify with either party. To me, if it's truly a bipartisan bill, both parties are OK with it as a whole and still have problems with the details. That's OK. That's what legislation is for. You can fix parts of it if it becomes apparent it's not working. And that's what I find so funny about the healthcare bill. There are amendments and provisions in there that the GOP put in, and yet they unanimously voted against it just because they feel it will better them politically to stand against it. It remains to be seen if this will bite them in the ass when it comes to elections, and that depends on whether the bill is seen as a success or failure in the months leading up to the mid-term elections.

And as for Congress itself, they need a major overhaul. They haven't been able to do their job in over a decade because of this aura of hyper-partisanship surrounding Capitol Hill. When the GOP had power in the 90's, they killed healthcare the first time around under Clinton. The Dems killed Social Security privatization in return a few years ago under Bush. It seems like neither party wants to be an adult about all this and work across the aisle because they are still licking their wounds. This is why I think a 3rd political party is needed. They can come in and actually legislate while they spend all their time fighting. I'd imagine the Democrats and Republicans would eventually go the way of the Federalists, Whigs and all the other political parties and just evolve into another party.

I can see why George Washington didn't have a political party. I think his fears have become a reality. He feared they would lead to nothing but conflict and stagnation. And what do we have today? Fighting between the parties and threats of filibuster. The founding fathers as a whole I think would be rolling in their graves if they saw the way our government runs now. Hell, they are probably yelling at the top of their lungs up in heaven, hoping Congress will get with the picture.

Here's another good article I've found over the course of the week: http://www.newsweek.com/id/235560/page/1

Ugh. That's just little old me and my opinion.

My Muse

I'm going to have a minor pop culture moment. Or a music snob moment. Look at it whichever way you want.

I know I bitch about this frequently to my friends and ocassionally as status updates on Facebook. Anyone who has known me for the past maybe 5 years or so knows I'm a Muse fan. I remember hearing "Stockholm Syndrome" and thinking that it was a really good song. Fast forward to 2006 when Black Holes and Revelations came out. By then, they had released a few more songs that they played on the radio in the US - "Time is Running Out" & "Hysteria" among them. I had really liked all the singles they put out from Absolution. The first couple singles off BH&R were amazing, then I was hit with pure sonic bliss otherwise known as "Knights of Cydonia." I was hooked from then on. I went back and downloaded Showbiz, Origin of Symmetry and completed Absolution. I've recently finished tracking down all their old singles for the B-sides. Long story short, I now have a near-complete Muse discography.

Hell, I drove 16 hours roundtrip last weekend to see them in Atlanta. Honestly, I'd drive all night if I had to to see them. If I could afford it, I'd follow them on their entire North America tour and go to Coachella next month just for them (OK, maybe Muse, Thom Yorke, Them Crooked Vultures and MGMT. Damn...why aren't I going to that?)

To the point of this rant.

I hate Twilight for 2 major reasons. #1: The way the books ended was a gigantic cop-out. I lost all my respect for Stephenie Meyer as an author and the books as a whole after I finished reading Breaking Dawn. Are you really going to end the series you just spent 4 books setting up with a verbal discussion and have everyone live happily ever after? Really? They're fucking vampires. Have some blood and guts, for Christ's sake. Even Harry Potter, which is aimed at a younger audience, had the courage to kill off a few of beloved characters. And that was even before the 7th book even started. #2: If it weren't for Twilight, Muse would not be anywhere as near as popular as they are right now. I am in no way accusing them of selling out. They were selling out concerts in coliseums in Europe long before I had ever heard of them. I just feel that their music is above the average Twi-hard's head. I don't think any other band they would typically listen to would have references to the Chaos Theory ("Butterflies and Hurricanes"), not to mention a song named after a psychological condition. OK, kiddies. No cheating. What is Stockholm Syndrome? Most people who say they like Muse only like them because of Twilight and I'm sure if I put them on the spot and asked them to name one song that isn't on the soundtrack, BH&R or The Resistance, they wouldn't know. Name me the B-side for Uno. Hell, name one album that came out before BH&R. And even if you can name me those things, can you honestly tell me you knew who they were before Twilight? Their music is just so out there lyrically, I don't know how it inspired Stephenie Meyer to write a vampire love story. Do you really think "Starlight" is a love song about another person? I'm sure your're wondering "But what about 'I Belong to You?'" It's a song they re-did so they could include it on the New Moon soundtrack since they wanted exclusivity. And I'll give you that it's pretty much a love song, but it's on an album that is extremely political. Besides, it was released in 2009, after the books were done being published.

Ugh. I'm done. I just needed to get all that out in the open. I am in no way letting my bias against Twilight put a damper on my love affair with Muse.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

3rd political party in the US future?

Can there please be a 3rd political party soon? I know I said last time I'm Democratic. But the Democrats unfortunately don't have backbone to push through any legislation. I refuse to switch to Republicans because generally speaking, they don't give a damn about anything except for keeping the rich rich and scaring the American people into believing what they want them to so that they can get away with murder. I'm trying to believe that America will open their eyes and see that the current system is extremely corrupt.

To me, the only way to make any real change in this country is to create this 3rd party. Vote out everyone currently in office. They don't really care about the American people, they just want to keep their pockets lined with lobbyist money. And the Supreme Court basically just said "Fuck you" to the people they are supposed to be working for when they voted to allow lobbying firms to donate unlimited money to campaign funds. Really, Supreme Court? Really? How are We The People supposed to gain any influence with these politicians if you can give them all the money they want so that they will do what you want?

And this B.S. Tea Party movement is making me want to cry. OK, you're against new taxes. Are you really such a cold-hearted person that you don't care if your family, friends and neighbors are dropping like flies because they can't afford health insurance anymore? I'm going to generalize here for a moment. Generally speaking, the people in this movement are Republicans. Generally speaking, Republicans are God-fearing Christians.

Matthew 25:45 - Then he will answer them, saying, "Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me."

I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't look too kindly on everyone not wanting to help out their fellow man.