View De Anza & Stevens Creek, Cupertino in a larger map

Does he risk turning into Mr. Wheeler?

A War on Terror Mongering is hereby declared.

Wikipedia: Leo Strauss 

Wikipedia: Sayid Qutb 

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed, and people lost faith in political ideologies.

After the end of the Cold War, politicians had come to be seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority over us. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares.

They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. The new boogeyman, the tell us, is international terrorism—a powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world—a threat that needs to be fought by a global war on terror.

But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted by politicians and a derelict media to their own selfish advantage. It’s a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned throughout the Western world.

This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives, and the militant Islamists. Both groups are idealists who share a common belief that liberal democracy failed to build a better world. And both groups share a similar explanation for what caused that failure.

These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Western politicians have created today’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that they claim threatens the world—a fantasy they have used to restore their power and authority over an emergency-managed and willfully-gullible public in a disillusioned age.

In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. While the 20th century was dominated between a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that’s a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomized rather than of their inherent strength.

But the fear will not last, and just as the dreams that politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so, too, will the nightmares, and then our politicians will have to face the fact that they have no visions, either good or bad, to offer us any longer.

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed, and people lost faith in political ideologies.

After the end of the Cold War, politicians had come to be seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority over us. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares.

They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. The new boogeyman, the tell us, is international terrorism—a powerful and sinister network, with sleeper cells in countries across the world—a threat that needs to be fought by a global war on terror.

But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted by politicians and a derelict media to their own selfish advantage. It’s a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned throughout the Western world.

This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives, and the militant Islamists. Both groups are idealists who share a common belief that liberal democracy failed to build a better world. And both groups share a similar explanation for what caused that failure.

These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Western politicians have created today’s nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that they claim threatens the world—a fantasy they have used to restore their power and authority over an emergency-managed and willfully-gullible public in a disillusioned age.

In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda. While the 20th century was dominated between a conflict between a free-market Right and a socialist Left, even though both of those outlooks had their limitations and their problems, at least they believed in something, whereas what we are seeing now is a society that believes in nothing. And a society that believes in nothing is particularly frightened by people who believe in anything, and, therefore, we label those people as fundamentalists or fanatics, and they have much greater purchase in terms of the fear that they instill in society than they truly deserve. But that’s a measure of how much we have become isolated and atomized rather than of their inherent strength.

But the fear will not last, and just as the dreams that politicians once promised turned out to be illusions, so, too, will the nightmares, and then our politicians will have to face the fact that they have no visions, either good or bad, to offer us any longer.

In which waterlily and I exchange greetings under the stern gaze of The Moderator. 

Our one-line apologies are in response to a warning from The Moderator about the thread topic and forums rules. We are excused, posts (and apologies) accepted even though off-topic. These forums are a permanent, searchable archive of un-censor-able free discussion on any and all Cults.

Un-censor-able in that once The Moderator green-lights something, nothing anyone else does can remove it — a Wikileaks of Cults, if you will. Were I trying to hide from any Cult I would have used a different handle.

waterlily
… 
As I get older/wiser hopefully—-I have come to really meditate on the meaning of what Christ must have meant when he spoke about his coming to divide families and that he brought a sword. I have been reading alot on this and am seeing that perhaps he was addressing the most fundamental authoritarian issue of all: the family. And how this introduction to our world via family sets the tone for everything else.

Welcome to the forums, waterlily! Boy, can I relate to what you are saying. While I am pretty skeptical of any and all “messiahs” I think it is absolutely crucial to inspect what’s left of their “message.” Assume he was a person, a particularly caring and helpful person. Assume his message was perverted many times by evil power-hungry people. Don’t discount the possibility that his message contradicts the very institutions that “claim” him, for example the stuff about seeking wealth at people’s expense, being humble, the hubris of self-proclaimed divinity, i.e. the Pope and the Vatican. 

A small warning about the forums — they frequently are joined by cult-ish people trying to push an agenda. They frequently end up violating the rules and are banned, but until then they can cause a ruckus and grief for a person such as yourself. 

The primary goal here is [IMO] un-censor-able free discussion, archived and searchable, and that comes at the expense of troll-ability. I watch most of the stuff go by without comment, but it’s valuable to me as a research tool. 

Just the other day someone who is very religious and very conservative asked me about Westboro Baptist, based on a single comment I made. I was pleased to provide a link to search these forums, and can only hope that ultimately we can agree that Westboro Baptist does not share any of what sincere conservative Christians call “their values.” I mean really, if we can’t agree that Westboro goes too far, there isn’t any common ground to be had. Fortunately, my lack of belief and other peoples beliefs may find some common ground through understanding the mechanisms of the “Cult.” 

Cheers!

Hi Reechard, and many thanks for your kind welcome and input. And the warning about trolls on these forums. Uhm….not sure I can post this or more as it doesn’t contribute to the topic of this thread and perhaps would be considered getting it off track. Nonetheless, that you noticed I was here, am here, is very nice, and matters. waterlily

Am I concerned about an “orphaned” URL? Quite the reverse; This site may be gone tomorrow. I expect the forums will be permanent — as much as anything online is “permanent” given how “old” Internet really is.  The Internet is barely a teenager when you set it down next to the printing press.

An interesting, civilized discourse about President Obama convened on May 21, 2010 in Sidney, Australia.

The panel includes journalist Anne Davies and writers Don Watson and Christopher Hitchens. The moderator is Geoffrey Garrett from the United States Studies Centre.

The partisan, fractured political climate and decline in debate-style discussion are two reasons why this sort of debate isn’t held inside U.S. borders.

Even though the stature of the U.S. may be in decline over the long term, people in other nations still pay much more attention to U.S. politics than we do to their politics. There is also a tendency to simply forget that other nations exist. Get a wider perspective on U.S. politics, from the U.K. or Australia!

UPDATE: It’s clear BravoTV is junk food TV. They know it isn’t any good, and I’m sure they don’t want any of their video attached to unapproved commentary. If you must watch this, go pay for it somewhere and be ashamed.

 Teresa GiudiceThis episode (season 2 ep. 10) was filmed many months ago in the fall of 2009, around the time of Teresa’s husband’s other property foreclosure, one of Joe’s many construction / speculation boondoggles. That’s why Teresa was so upset that Danielle dug up dirt on a foreclosure, and why Teresa wanted to punish her.

I’m not inclined to discuss the “Danielle problem.” I find her extremely pathetic and boring. The most interesting thing about her is that her daughters have that weary, worried appearance of waif children who are forced to take an adult role. They successfully dissuaded Danielle from a drive-by stalking.

Danielle is a fame-seeking would-be tragic figure whose real tragedy is her shallowness, her delusions of grandeur, and her pathetic mis-use of the legal system. Excuse me, but I can imagine anyone murdering Danielle out of sheer exasperation — but I’m sure the jury would be sympathetic.

Danielle should not be such a big problem for the other housewives. Teresa doesn’t seem frightened by Danielle. Quite the contrary. In this episode Teresa was not trying to “be nice” at all. She started out saying what a sweet nice person she herself is, except for Danielle making her a table-tosser. Hey Teresa did no one ever tell you you’re not supposed to say those things about yourself even if they’re true? And if they aren’t, you appear crass, self-absorbed, and deluded.

Yeah honey, you’re so sweet, you immediately became shrill, foul-mouthed trash, saying “old hag” and “b*tch” about a million times. And sweetie, using this language with people you aren’t close to is meant to be a put-down, you nasty little piece of work. Do you read me, doll-face?

It must be said, here Teresa resembles no one as much as a low-class drag queen or project diva going off on a rival, reading her beads, after some dust-up over a boyfriend or coveted fashion accessory.

It turns out Teresa must really be from a poor background, because she’s very proud of her “5 million dollar mansion” which is worth a fraction of that and does seem like a poor, uneducated person’s idea of elegance. Freddie two-fingers’ gay cousin probably didn’t help much with the interior.

Teresa and husband Joe

The 11 million dollar bankruptcy is much more recent, was apparently filed days after the other foreclosure, so I’m very confused about the timeline and Teresa’s insistence that their “dream home” wasn’t foreclosed. Zillow says otherwise, in a piece dated June 7, 2010. Here’s a June 5 piece at the New York Post if you must.

The bankruptcy is in large part a bunch of mortgages, construction loans and “renovation” debts where Joe left sub-contractors holding the bag when some ridiculously priced goombah palace wouldn’t sell. I was under the impression that credit card debt isn’t forgiven anymore with any kind of bankruptcy, so that will be interesting. The other possibility is Joe did make some money, “tax free” ha ha, and buried it in the back yard.

I’m giving it four stars for schadenfreude, nastiness,  name-calling, hair-pulling and evidence of a nation in serious decline. E un uomo d’affari e imprenditore di successo! While searching for an image of Joe Giudice, Google suggested I search for “Joe Giudice construction mafia.” Enjoy!

UPDATE: These clips from Bravo TV won’t expire  Silly me, and shame on BravoTV. I won’t be talking about them much since they expire even short clips. 

Teresa and Joe deserve a full IRS investigation. Teresa’s lie that the bankruptcy is Joe’s and his partner’s is pathetic, since it includes her outrageous spending. It’s a personal bankruptcy, hers and Joe’s and no one else’s. She should stop hurling insults like “coke whore” since she could be called a “mafiosa guidette.”

Teresa is quite the liar, as she recounts her disgusting behavior for her husband. Her response to a fact which she refuses to acknowledge is to hurl nasty insults. She should try to throw less bitch rocks since she lives in a foreclosed glass house. Didn’t some Housewife “sing” about how money can’t buy you class? It can however buy classes in subjects like civil discourse, conflict resolution, public relations, ethical behavior, civics. Hell, she needs to take English to learn how to hurl a better class of insult. 

Apparently this is a grifter scam, timing their bankruptcy carefully and filing papers that are chock-full of outrageous lies. A pity her character betrays the scam, since the first mention of “foreclosure” in front of the cameras is enough to send her over the edge.  NJ.com has more from June 7, right after the New York Post discovered their bankruptcy papers.

I remember hearing Salman Khan describe his concept which I paraphrase roughly:

Lectures should be assigned as homework to be completed/viewed before “class”

The scarcity of in-person student and teacher “classroom” time should be reserved for student questions and individualized assistance from the teacher.

Another scarcity that is being donated for the “public good” is Khan’s time and talent. This chosen profession follows time Khan spent as a hedge-fund analyst, and grew out of his desire to teach and help tutor his cousins in math.

These videos are “meta-Khan”, about the channel and content found there.

UPDATE: Added Pope Benedict’s recent speech on the subject of abuse.

This four-video playlist set on Maciel is in reverse chronological order, starting with the shocking news that Father Maciel abused his own children and hid his occupation from his family for 17 years. The heart-breaking interview of one of Maciel’s sons by ABC news broadcast June 21, 2001 should lay to rest any question as to the truth of the allegations, and the extent of the Vatican’s problem in pursuing its own investigations. 

The last of the four is quite an eye-opener in this context. The accusations against Maciel in 1997 published in the Hartford Courant were denied by the Vatican, and were followed by Maciel’s special appointment by Pope John Paul II as his representative in Latin America. (Then) Cardinal Ratzinger protected Maciel by stopping the investigations. (Current) Pope Benedict is complicit in covering up the heinous crimes of pedophiles like Maciel, who died in 2008.

Maciel was a very successful fundraiser for the church, and founded the order “Legionaries of Christ.” The apologies to the victims and the declaration by the order that Maciel is no longer considered a “model” are pathetic and shameful. These events make a mockery of what increasingly seems a late, reluctant and patronizing effort by the Vatican in public relations damage control. 

Here is more evidence that the Vatican’s real concern is self-preservation. In the part about “enemies” it is implied that they are enemies of “God.” The Pope apparently thinks he must protect the priests from their enemies, who are trying to use the children and the scandal to destroy them.

I’ve been actively engaged with the fine people at vodpod since the beginning, catching spammers, reporting bugs, and thanking them for a wide range of improvements made during my stay.

At this site you will see several uses of Vodpod videos

• on the sidebar, a different collection for each section of the site
• in video galleries, to present a collection as in Facepalm videos (a popular post)
• in single video embeds

Just today I noticed a small jump in followers on the site, and I found myself on the recommended list under “Staff Picks”

(Funny) Reechard’s mix of interesting and funny videos from around the web

I’m blushing! 

This also reminds me of something that happened a week or so ago. I turned on the twitter notifications, for a while, and then turned them off. I haven’t settled into a pattern yet; I recognize power users when I see them, and I’m blown away. I will keep playing with the options though… One I haven’t even begun to play with is list creation. I have a stable community of 6 or 7 hundred people, and I understand the way people manage large numbers is by classification and by subscribing to lists. All of this is neither here nor there, but be warned: a tweet such as

@reechard I may have to stop following u if all yr gonna tweet is any adding videos!

will likely be met with:

@eonarts go right ahead!

Hulu: Millionaire Matchmaker (Patti Stanger)

Hulu: Douglas and Nicole (Season 3 Ep. 8)  (44:06)

Amazon: Douglas and Nicole (Season 3 Ep. 8)

[Yay. Finally a relevant Hulu ad. Pity I already got the Nexus One.]

Douglas is superlative: the most shallow, uninformed, eco-poseur I have ever run across.

He was in some finance field until recently; now he expounds on the evils of beef (over chicken!) to his date, who is from another culture. Doug probably took a few hours or days to acquire his eco-religion and “his friends all know” that ordering beef is bad! Doug demands that people meet his high eco-standard: they must “try” to reduce their carbon footprint, and maybe purchase a hybrid SUV. I almost forgot these turds pearls of Doug idiocy wisdom:

David ordering red meat in front of me was a little disturbing…. Everyone knows that red meat, or meat that comes from red animals, are… is much more damaging to the environment.

Seriously. Minute 41:00. Then, “I’m not that schooled on the whole process.” Yes, the “process” of sanctimonious preaching from your pulpit of eco-garbage.

Based on all that who can be sure his clothing line isn’t actually green-washed in the Marianas Islands, or made by little children? Doug is the poster child for all that is wrong with eco-stupid. You can literally slap a sticker on anything and that’s good enough for Doug. He can’t be bothered to learn the difference between non-toxic and green-washed toxic. He’s got a clothing line to design and produce! You can compost these clothes immediately! I’m sure that’s smarter than wearing them.

What do you think about this “hottie” who absolutely everyone is “interested in” (really?) He’s not bad-looking… except when he opens his mouth. Then I just see a self-absorbed ignoramus, and that totally ruins the illusion.

Say what you will about Patti the Reality TV yenta. She certainly had Douglas’ number right away, and so did her employee Destin. Doug denied he was boring, and said that Destin was bored because Destin isn’t gay. Sorry Miss Doug: the straight boy got you pegged.

Oh sorry Patti I was in the middle of a photo shoot… I’m modeling for my own clothing line!

Patti: “Looks fade but dumb is forever.”

If Doug decides dumb is not for him, and wants to make a real go of this business, he needs to get some remedial education. Chemistry and sustainable business courses are offered many places. Doug can educate himself, or remain the “pretty face” who refers all serious questions to his “science-y guy” who knows a few,things.

clockwise from left: Anthony Blunt, Alan Turing, Roy Cohn

Of the Cambridge Five, as they have come to be known, only Kim Philby wasn’t a homosexual. It is rumored that Blunt recruited those four Apostles for Stalin. It is also rumored that Blunt used others’ homosexuality to blackmail even more hapless souls into the service of Mother Russia. Being homosexual was quite a different matter back in the staid 1930s. [source: Master Soviet Spy Sir Anthony Blunt’s Memoirs Released]

In this country we find in the history books the likes of Roy Cohn — played so effectively by Al Pacino in the HBO adaptation of “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.”

“Unit cohesion” I hear people chant. I laugh at their pathetic stupidity.

As far as lack of imagination goes, I ask those people to imagine where a language expert recently fired from the intelligence services might find employment — especially the Arab language experts. Thankfully these young people are much too patriotic to consider working for America’s enemies — but why on earth would you treat your own citizens so terribly for serving their own country?

It’s just another bomb waiting to go off: the imbalanced, introverted genius who only needs the condemnation of family, community and government to push him over the edge. But go right ahead, keep trying to light the fuse. I’m sure someone will lend you the lucky match in time.

As obvious as it may be to some, for others the fact must be underlined: it’s the stigma and homophobia here that create the security risk, not the individual’s private life.



Intelligence² Debates

Intelligence² occupies a unique position in London’s social and intellectual landscape. It is the only institution in town - aside from Parliament - to provide a forum for debate on the crucial issues of the day; but unlike Parliament, its debates are consistently exciting, witty, provocative… and comfortable, held as they are at the Royal Geographical Society’s Ondaatje Theatre and other venues.

Intelligence² takes information and analysis as its raw material, and translates this into discussion, conversation, and sexy debate.

IQ² debate: “Pakistan: what next?”

Richard Lindley introduces this debate on the future of Pakistan.

Opening the discussion, General Sir David Richards argues that the international community has been terribly good at coming up with bright ideas, but terribly poor at implementing them.

Imran Khan is heavily critical of the ways in which General Musharraf, President Asif Ali Zardari and the US have carried out their military offensive in the tribal areas of Pakistan since 2004. He said they had failed to distinguish between al-Qaida and the Taliban, which held limited ideological beliefs.

Anatol Lieven suggests that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is our key strategic interest in the long term, and that the Western presence is driving radicalisation. He said he had been shocked to find that many Pakistanis regard the Taliban as they did the Mujahedeen, and support the Taliban’s right to fight against foreign occupiers.

Jonathan Paris foresees that, over the next one to three years, Pakistan will neither turn into a failed state, nor grow significantly. It would, he predicted, muddle through. Pakistan, he suggests, is not attracting enough investment, and needs to break away from the IMF stranglehold.

Farzana Shaikh reassesses the claim that the US is primarily responsible for Pakistan’s problems. Instead, she proposes, the country’s malaise lies in its historic conflict with India and uncertainty over the role of religion.

Jaswant Singh Jaswant Singh discusses the Future of Pakistan. Since the start of the 20th century, the whole of the South Asian region has been at the crossroads of a collapsed empire, be it Ottoman, How is it possible, Singh asked, that 60 years after Independence, the region was once again subject to the whims of the West?

William Dalrymple points out that while the media has been only too eager to praise India as an emerging superpower, neighbouring Pakistan has been portrayed as a failed state - and the only US ally bombed regularly by Washington. This contrast, Dalrymple said, was a huge exaggeration.

I forgot to express sufficient gratitude that the esteemed Professor Cowburn has graced us with his kind “belief in evolution.” Without that, we’d be listening to him drone on endlessly about how God punishes our hubris by his Making of the Fake Fossils on the Sixth Day. The horror. 

A televised debate from November 2009 in London, followed by criticism and suggestions 

Sponsored ad

Be prepared to meet your maker with the Indulgence line of credit and instant tithe payment

 available at select mega-churches and praying malls 

The debate

The biggest problem with this debate is the question. It didn’t really go anywhere interesting, nor did it seem to sway anyone in the audience (largely Christian, as it was held in a church.) I think the sub-text to all of Cowburn’s statements is an attempt to refute Dawkins’ “God is a delusion and religion is a virus” thesis.

Viewers should disregard any claims by Professor Cowburn that he is a humble garden-variety Christian. His smirk and air of self-satisfaction betray an absolute certainty in his righteousness, but in the end, high self-esteem and expertise in nano-technology don’t by themselves prove that “God and science go together.” Cowburn experienced an independent religious conversion to Christianity at age 18, presumably away from the “normal” British secularism of his family. Unfortunately, we don’t know if Cowburn is a Papist or Evangelical Protestant or what. He does seem to want everyone to accept Jeebus as God’s proxy, being such an important “pinch point.”

New rule: don’t coin new words and phrases to make your argument. If you say “pinch point” for example, your opponent may challenge the term. Should it be missing from the dictionary, your opponent may then use it freely to mean anything he wants — but you may not.

Criticism of the arguments

• Overstating what can be expected from science makes a convenient straw-man argument to easily shoot down. I agree that science can’t answer Cowburn’s question “Does my wife love me?” but considering general infidelity rates, I think a better question with a more useful answer would be “Does my wife love me more than the milkman?”
• Cowburn shows his ignorance of applied science in military matters with his silly example “what does science say about the war in Iraq?” Intelligence gathering, threat evaluation and war “gaming” all use state-of-the art “science” as does the field of game theory. It’s only recently that a computer won against a chess grand master; perhaps Cowburn would rather everyone pray for guidance rather than attempt a rigorous answer to the Iraq war question. His obvious unstated opinion is that his faith gives him moral superiority, and hence he can answer the question better than “science.” All of which is utter nonsense, of course. Cowburn is also apparently ignorant of what the Downing Street memo proved: that the “Iraq war” wasn’t a question to be posed, but a given around which everything else was to be choreographed
• For believers, “proving” a Supreme Being exists or seeking such proof could be seen as an sign of weak faith. If you know Jeebus is your personal savior, why prove anything? Doesn’t that imply you haven’t completely given yourself over to your Messiah?
• I dislike the implication that hard science and religious dogma are the only things of use to nurture civil society. It’s important to inform your arguments with the best knowledge and information at hand, and realize that your argument must persuade regardless of faith or lack of it
• I found the claims about Jesus proving God, endorsing Abraham & subsuming all Abrahamic faiths, ridiculous. Cowburn realized his error later in the debate, and claimed “Jesus proves the existence of the Abrahamic God” which I find ridiculous still, but coherent (a well-formed theorem, but false)
• I dislike the fact that this religious argument admits no possible errors in the doctrine, and makes no attempt to separate valuable human parables from completely outdated social policies. I’d rather people didn’t ask everyone to accept their “miracles” and genesis myths as factual. Second- and third-hand accounts, accounts recorded decades after events, language muddled through multiple translations, and suppression of unpopular accounts must be dealt with honestly
• Cowburn misstates the Atheist position regarding the existence of a divine dictator. A request that extraordinary evidence accompany extraordinary claims is quite different from the notion that the existence of said dictator has been or can be disproved. This is elementary logic and rhetoric, and a cynical attempt to rebut an argument that was never made. The impossibility of proving a negative is well-known and quite tedious regarding the question “does God exist?” The more interesting issue is whether one thinks the existence of God is provable in the affirmative at all. Cowburn apparently thinks it is, and his proof is his personal conversion to Christianity via the New Testament (King James edition?) at age 18. Hallelujah, praise be, yada yada. Snore.
  

Possibly related suggestions

Try to get as far away from this anti-example as you can (stick around for the intro to evolution concepts)

Headless transcript: mumble has become mumble from mumbletypeg. Correct? A has become A from A’. Correct? You have become yourself from your parent. Correct?

I wish I could count past the one after one. I hate the idea of meeting my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather at the zoo. Our ancestors are lurking around waiting to stab us in a dark alley, dirty clever gorillas. Or lemurs. Or benobo. Or is it monkeys?

Are we marsupials or insects? I’m confused! Man is a manimal, and so is a whale, but not shark week. Sharks are like water snakes, cold blooded! When can I get a manimarsupial pouch for my cell phone? Sign me up, forget that river crap!

• Comparative religion and the history of religion deserve more study. Was it the Franciscans and the Catholics that had the epic battle and split over whether Jeebus had a purse? Yes, more or less: Wikipedia: Apostolic Poverty (I’m pleased I remembered that factoid)
• The fracturing of at least 2 of the big 3 religions into conflicting orders and sects shows me that regardless of which lucky religion (if any) holds the magic key to the pearly gates, it isn’t a discernable fact and should never be used as an argument for or against any proposition. It is a sin of pride, false judgment and hubris to regard another as inferior because of a difference in faith. Faith is largely an accident of birth — most commonly it is inherited from your family and community. How cruel it would be if the other (roughly) two thirds of humans lost the coin toss, and will be eternally damned because their parents were Pastafarians. Is the divine dictator benevolent if he gives you at best a one-in-three chance for salvation? Are we but chips on a divine Craps table that He is gambling with cynically?
• A person who claims their faith commands them to forcibly convert all others to it risks forgetting the lessons of history and guarantees a grim future
• Dogma reformation can be and has been accomplished. Literal, fundamentalist interpretation of ancient dogma is too common. Articles of faith are not “true” but instead are possibly relevant or valuable to modern human society. Often these articles are “religious” commands requiring or forbidding garments, personal grooming, body exposure, sex, flirtation, visibility of ankles, discussions of items like these, appeals to an elder, stonings, castings out, ad lib infinitum. These are ancient relics, useful only to bind you together with a false cord. Please look harder to see what’s relevant. It might not matter that you do things a certain way.  It probably matters more that you all follow strict rules, eat the same diet and worship together. It’s even more relevant if you are thousands strong in a giant crystal cave on a mountain top, with a tall masculine leader who claims to be your new Messiah come to Earth to lead you in battle! Please call me immediately and reverse the charges should this happen. This is both valuable and relevant — and quite rare thankfully
• First leave your dogma with the cat and then please argue your position on HIV prevention, birth control, and the like and explain how it is applicable to all affected humans of all (or no) faiths
• Last I checked we are all human, regardless of genetic differences. Let us not allow our brothers and sisters and our tiny blue dot to suffer outrageous harm, acts of genocidal violence, terrorism and wholesale damage to delicate ecosystems. And let us not become ideological extremists serving some fervently misguided cause (i.e. Earth Liberation Front, P.E.T.A.)  
• Let us strive to avoid becoming “protest addicts” who would rather yell at strangers with a bullhorn than have a debate on the merits of policy

Fair warning

• The survival through 2009 of the 9/11 conspiracies in the U.S. is a sign that many people are becoming less interested in “objective reality.” By “objective reality” I mean (roughly) reasonable, coherent determination of causes, effects, motives and threats
• The “tower of Babel” is quickly being brought down by technology. In its place is being constructed a grand temple of all faiths past and present, with Beelzebub collecting the exorbitant rent, payable only in human blood, to be sure
  

Bob Rivers is still twisting holiday classics. I find the music and lyrics often hilarious, often offensive, and always well produced. I much prefer Bob Rivers to Weird Al. His radio show originates at KZOK in Seattle, Washington.

Bob Rivers Show website

There’s a “Twisted Xmas Radio” tab there which lets you make a playlist and play single items.

Highly recommended Hendrix homage: Holidaze (S’cuse Me, I’ve got Gifts to Buy)

I’d love to use the videos from his site, but some genius completely borked the embed codes, they won’t “share to Facebook” either.

Bob Rivers on YouTube

About.com: The Radio Guy Who “Twisted Christmas” Forever (You’ve Heard His Christmas Parodies: Now The Story Behind Them)

Here’s a behind-the-scenes interview with Randy Hansen, the guitarist who does the Hendrix tributes, as they prepare for the yearly Twisted Christmas extravaganza in Seattle, WA.

Seattle guitarist Randy Hansen will be was a guest Impaler at the Twisted Christmas Party at the Paramount Theater December 13th 2007. During rehearsals, he has been impressing impressed the Impalers with his self-tuning guitar and he brought in that guitar to play for us. The day after our Christmas show, Randy will play played the 4th Avenue Tavern in Olympia.

The Video Gallery may not work on certain browsers, so here’s a link that will serve as an alternate:

vodpod.com/reechard/softmachineother/tag/xmas

Intelligence Squared (US edition) hosted a debate (on December 1 2009) on the motion:

America is to blame for Mexico’s drug war

MODERATOR: John Donvan is a correspondent for ABC News Nightline. He has served as ABC White House Correspondent, along with posting in Moscow, London, Jerusalem and Amman.

FOR THE MOTION:  Andrés Martinez directs the New America Foundation’s Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program. He was the editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times from 2004-2007, and presided over the newspaper’s op-ed page and Sunday opinion section.

FOR THE MOTION: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University. Miron holds a B.A. from Swarthmore College and a Ph.D. in economics from M.I.T.

FOR THE MOTION: Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine has an audience of over 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which appears in Newsweek International and the Washington Post.

AGAINST THE MOTION:  Asa Hutchinson has been elected three times to the United States Congress and has been confirmed by the United States Senate both as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration and as the nation’s first undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security after the 9-11 attacks.

AGAINST THE MOTION: Chris W. Cox is the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association of America. Cox oversees seven ILA divisions: Federal Affairs, State & Local Government Affairs, Public Relations, Grassroots, Finance and Administration, Research & Information, Conservation, Wildlife & Natural Resources; as well as the Office of Legislative Counsel.

AGAINST THE MOTION: Jorge Castañeda was foreign minister of Mexico from 2000 to 2003. Castañeda is a renowned public intellectual, political scientist, and prolific writer, with an interest in Mexican and Latin American politics, comparative politics and US-Mexican and U.S.-Latin American relations.

Transcript:

Meta-note on permission, access and economics of media such as posted here:

The video is publicly available and so is the transcript, hence this post. I’m a big fan of these debates, and I will likely become a paying “subscriber” — the problem is that I won’t be able to share anything I get access to as paying member. What a dilemma! This does raise the question: whether a “blog use permit” could exist for per-post use of generally unavailable media? It’s just a thought — a way to make money, but not “everything is free” and not “content for paying subscribers only.” I’d be happy to throw IQ² some cash for the priviledge of sharing content I find particularly compelling.

Impl. note: Using “access here only” video and document embeds, with a key generated by the content provider, sent after the one-shot payment has been received.