[Part I]
Why are these novels terrifying? Well.
There's a point to be made about the daydream quality of these
books; they're essentially to Bud Macfarlane, Jr. what Twilight is to
Stephenie Meyer--by which I mean, of course, that he wrote the books
about the kind of magical Catholic world he must lie awake at night pondering and yearning for.
A world in which, when Y2k crashes society and everything is reset, all the gays and Muslims and atheists and Democrats and feminists etc. either die in the first wave after the crash or see the error of their ways and become god-fearing Catholics or never existed at all.
A world in which, when God stops time and reveals committed sins to each individual in a personal but world-wide Judgement, the people who refuse to accept God's love and forgiveness kill each other rapidly, leaving the saintly to form a Catholic society in which everyone has a farm* and stops in the fields to pray the Angelus when the church bells ring at noon, and everyone does not include gays or Muslims or atheists or Democrats or feminists etc., because either they died or repented or never existed at all.
My point, it is this: I am creeped out by Mr. Macfarlane's picture of a perfect world, because there is no place for me in it.
I don't care what perfect world Catholics dream about--so long as it's on their own time, and not steadfastly creeping its way into the laws of my country.
Did you get that? It is also MY country.
There is no place for me in Catholic Paradise, and it would appear, when considering certain laws recently passed, that it is preferable for me to actually cease living rather than find myself out of place in a Catholic Paradise.
Do I need to clarify that I strongly disagree?
*Bud Macfarlane, Jr., appears to absolutely despise technology. The downfall of society, simpler times, all of that--I guess.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2012
Monday, March 7, 2011
I Would Like This Public Protest
Women with the following, or something like it, taped to their abdomens:
And, possibly, men with the following, or something like it, taped to their abdomens:
Too much?
"U.S. GOVT. PROPERTY
NO
TRESPASSING"
NO
TRESPASSING"
And, possibly, men with the following, or something like it, taped to their abdomens:
"PRIVATE
PROPERTY
NO
TRESPASSING"
PROPERTY
NO
TRESPASSING"
Too much?
Friday, February 11, 2011
On Two Days Of Inattention And The GOP
I took a two-day break from the Internets this week. I went snowshoeing, drank tequila, saw my parents and sisters and brother, had dinner with my boyfriend's parents, drank coffee, and laughed until my sides ached.
I returned from my two-day break tonight, only to discover that, while I was out enjoying life despite all of the shit in it, Republicans want to "eliminate the word 'victim' from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence and replace it with 'accuser'" and de-fund programs that prevent sexual assault and domestic violence along with oh so many more programs for women and children.
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but, I'm not.
TWO. FUCKING. DAYS.
I returned from my two-day break tonight, only to discover that, while I was out enjoying life despite all of the shit in it, Republicans want to "eliminate the word 'victim' from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence and replace it with 'accuser'" and de-fund programs that prevent sexual assault and domestic violence along with oh so many more programs for women and children.
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but, I'm not.
TWO. FUCKING. DAYS.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Save Us From The OMGZ!Liberal!Media!
I just read an interesting article. Dated February 29, 2008, the headline is "McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign".
As precedent, the article describes the case of Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state. He was allowed to run for president, losing to Lyndon Johnson. The main point is that John McCain was born in Panama while his military father was stationed there.
Does anyone else find it odd that I'm only now hearing about this? Does anyone else find it odd that there are still members of the Tea Party railing on about "WHERE'S OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?" Does anyone else find it odd that the so-called "liberal media" picked up the Obama birth furor, yet didn't really seem to care about McCain?
Obama was born in a U.S. state. McCain was born on a U.S. military base in an area controlled by the U.S. at the time. But, oh, yeah, Obama is black. He must be a secret Kenyan citizen, or secret Muslim, or secret Enemy Of America!, but McCain is white, so he's obviously a Patriot!, or a MilitaryAmerican!
As precedent, the article describes the case of Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state. He was allowed to run for president, losing to Lyndon Johnson. The main point is that John McCain was born in Panama while his military father was stationed there.
Jill Hazelbaker, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said the request for legal help was purely routine, while The New York Times, the first mainstream news outlet to run the story, drew fire from conservative commentators for raising the issue at all.
At present, it appears Democrats have little interest in pursuing the matter.(emphasis mine.)
Does anyone else find it odd that I'm only now hearing about this? Does anyone else find it odd that there are still members of the Tea Party railing on about "WHERE'S OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?" Does anyone else find it odd that the so-called "liberal media" picked up the Obama birth furor, yet didn't really seem to care about McCain?
Obama was born in a U.S. state. McCain was born on a U.S. military base in an area controlled by the U.S. at the time. But, oh, yeah, Obama is black. He must be a secret Kenyan citizen, or secret Muslim, or secret Enemy Of America!, but McCain is white, so he's obviously a Patriot!, or a MilitaryAmerican!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
In Which I Ineffectually Rail Against Illogical, Uncritical Thinking
A 'discussion' just took place in my living room, between my father and I, within easy hearing of my 13-year-old brother. This 'discussion' began with my father denouncing the Westboro Baptist Church for their "abuse of free speech", as demonstrated by the whole "Everyone but us is going to hell", and ended with my father defending Sarah Palin's "right to free speech", as demonstrated by the whole "Don't retreat...RELOAD" crosshairs fiasco. I am also apparently not allowed to tell my dad what some people are saying, because he apparently knows exactly what everyone is saying at any given time.
Please, someone explain this to me; explain to me, as though I were a child, because I feel as though I must be since I fail to grasp the logic here, why one group of people is 'evil' when they express their hatred of other groups, but another group is 'within their rights' when they express violent desires and tendencies resulting from their hatred of other groups.
Seriously. Please. Explain.
If a string of murders occurred wherein the victims were Catholics and members of the military, you can bet the Westboro Baptist Church would be blamed for their indirect involvement. When a string of murders occurrs wherein the victims are abortion doctors and Democratic senators, the spewing of violence-themed hatred toward liberals, which includes abortion doctors and Democratic senators, as expressed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, is apparently completely unrelated.
Oh, and where are all the murders of pro-life advocates, Republican politicians, NRA members, and religious leaders that should be happening because, clearly, both sides are just as bad? If these events were really just the work of two mentally ill individuals, operating in a vacuum, acting merely by virtue of mental illness, completely unaffected by the culture and society in which they exist, why is it always the liberals who get shot?
P.S. If you disagree with the idea that rightwing rhetoric has affected and is currently affecting the present climate as well as the context of Dr. Tiller's murder and the Tuscon massacre, please read this before presenting arguments.
Please, someone explain this to me; explain to me, as though I were a child, because I feel as though I must be since I fail to grasp the logic here, why one group of people is 'evil' when they express their hatred of other groups, but another group is 'within their rights' when they express violent desires and tendencies resulting from their hatred of other groups.
Seriously. Please. Explain.
If a string of murders occurred wherein the victims were Catholics and members of the military, you can bet the Westboro Baptist Church would be blamed for their indirect involvement. When a string of murders occurrs wherein the victims are abortion doctors and Democratic senators, the spewing of violence-themed hatred toward liberals, which includes abortion doctors and Democratic senators, as expressed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, is apparently completely unrelated.
Oh, and where are all the murders of pro-life advocates, Republican politicians, NRA members, and religious leaders that should be happening because, clearly, both sides are just as bad? If these events were really just the work of two mentally ill individuals, operating in a vacuum, acting merely by virtue of mental illness, completely unaffected by the culture and society in which they exist, why is it always the liberals who get shot?
P.S. If you disagree with the idea that rightwing rhetoric has affected and is currently affecting the present climate as well as the context of Dr. Tiller's murder and the Tuscon massacre, please read this before presenting arguments.
Monday, November 1, 2010
On "Progress" And "Progressives" And, Apparently, Evolution
Here's the thing: I do not like the "progressive" label. I disagree with the use of the term "progress" in any generalized fashion; by that, I mean that it's perfectly acceptable to say that you're making progress toward a substantiated goal, but ridiculous when you speak of a general political ideology as progress, or of technological changes as progress, etc.
I will now digress in order to illustrate my point.
I disagree with the term because it carries an inherent value judgment; it's like when people who don't understand evolution treat it like more = better--that a higher quantity of evolutionary steps is, by definition, synonymous with a higher quality of resultant organism.
Except, cockroaches have remained essentially the same for millions of years; so have sharks. It's not because these organisms have stalled in the evolutionary world, like they're stuck in some sort of useless limbo. To the contrary, it's because further evolution is unnecessary. In their current context (which has either not changed in millions of years, or has changed in such a way that their arrangement of traits didn't require alteration), they survive. It's pretty damn simple, so I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend. They're already as fit as they need to be; there's nothing "good" or "bad" about it.
Survival, and evolution, and fitness; all of these are, as always, deeply contextual. ("context" is a very broad term; it encompasses everything from physical environment to societal structure to who you're competing with for resources.) Humans have gone through quite a few more evolutionary steps than either cockroaches or sharks, but rather than endowing on us some sort of Evolution Trophy or something, this actually means that our context has changed more times throughout our history. See? Simple. We evolved because we needed to; cockroaches and sharks didn't evolve because they didn't need to. When you look at it that way, you could make the argument that humans have never hit on an arrangement of traits that allowed them to survive as well as either cockroaches or sharks. Who's inferior now?
Back to "progress."
As explained by Liss at Shakesville, I very much agree with the progressive viewpoint. Do I think these substantiated goals would be an improvement over the current situation? Absolutely. But changing things, and calling it progress, just because the change is for the better--contextually--implies that any past situations of your society, or any situations of other societies, are, by definition, lesser. But, of course, this ignores context. In 1776, did we need laws governing fossil fuel emissions, corporations, interstate highways, reproductive rights, blah blah blah etc.? Of course not.
Now, we do need laws regarding those things. But how, exactly, does acknowledging reality and attempting to deal with it automatically confer superiority, high-ness, right-ness, "more than"?
Seriously. I'm asking you.
As Liss is fond of saying, words mean things. You call yourself progressive, you mean that your ideals are superior and if you meet your goals, society will be better, higher, righter, "more than". All I'm saying is that if the "progressive" goals are met, society will be equipped for its current context.
That's it.
I will now digress in order to illustrate my point.
I disagree with the term because it carries an inherent value judgment; it's like when people who don't understand evolution treat it like more = better--that a higher quantity of evolutionary steps is, by definition, synonymous with a higher quality of resultant organism.
Except, cockroaches have remained essentially the same for millions of years; so have sharks. It's not because these organisms have stalled in the evolutionary world, like they're stuck in some sort of useless limbo. To the contrary, it's because further evolution is unnecessary. In their current context (which has either not changed in millions of years, or has changed in such a way that their arrangement of traits didn't require alteration), they survive. It's pretty damn simple, so I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend. They're already as fit as they need to be; there's nothing "good" or "bad" about it.
Survival, and evolution, and fitness; all of these are, as always, deeply contextual. ("context" is a very broad term; it encompasses everything from physical environment to societal structure to who you're competing with for resources.) Humans have gone through quite a few more evolutionary steps than either cockroaches or sharks, but rather than endowing on us some sort of Evolution Trophy or something, this actually means that our context has changed more times throughout our history. See? Simple. We evolved because we needed to; cockroaches and sharks didn't evolve because they didn't need to. When you look at it that way, you could make the argument that humans have never hit on an arrangement of traits that allowed them to survive as well as either cockroaches or sharks. Who's inferior now?
Back to "progress."
As explained by Liss at Shakesville, I very much agree with the progressive viewpoint. Do I think these substantiated goals would be an improvement over the current situation? Absolutely. But changing things, and calling it progress, just because the change is for the better--contextually--implies that any past situations of your society, or any situations of other societies, are, by definition, lesser. But, of course, this ignores context. In 1776, did we need laws governing fossil fuel emissions, corporations, interstate highways, reproductive rights, blah blah blah etc.? Of course not.
Now, we do need laws regarding those things. But how, exactly, does acknowledging reality and attempting to deal with it automatically confer superiority, high-ness, right-ness, "more than"?
Seriously. I'm asking you.
As Liss is fond of saying, words mean things. You call yourself progressive, you mean that your ideals are superior and if you meet your goals, society will be better, higher, righter, "more than". All I'm saying is that if the "progressive" goals are met, society will be equipped for its current context.
That's it.
I Just Can't Vote For Ken Buck
There are these tv ads regarding Ken Buck, Republican Senate candidate for the state of Colorado. It's basically all these different people saying "I just can't do it--I just can't vote for Ken Buck." Well, I can't vote for Ken Buck, either--and here's why.
I will not tolerate a senator who
I mean, is there something I'm missing here? Some logical step I, not being burdened with the wisdom of politicians, have failed to make? Because, how could anyone in their right mind be ok with this line of thinking?
Does he mean that I will quit smoking if I know I'd have to pay for a lung transplant if I needed one? I guess that's reasonable, but let's keep going with that. Does he mean that I will avoid falling prey to a genetically inherited predisposition to diabetes if I know I'd have to pay for insulin if I get diabetes? Does he mean that I won't drive a car anymore, because I might get in an accident and I'd have to pay for the emergency room visit? Does he mean that I will make sure I'm not born male, because then I'd have a 1 in 6 chance of getting prostate cancer? Does he mean that I will make sure I'm not born female, because then I'd have a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Jesus Christ, I should never have been born! I have a 100% chance of death! If only I'd had an insurance plan with a high deductible; then I could have made the smart decision to abort myself before I even started growing arms.
- Obviously, he is "pro-life".
- Ken Buck thinks ordinary people make extravagant decisions about their healthcare unless they have to pay for their wretched decisions out of their own pocket.
Federal policy should also encourage individuals to buy high-deductible policies and to establish health savings accounts. HSAs serve two purposes: They help people build up a cushion to help with medical expenses; and they introduce a greater level of price awareness among healthcare consumers. People can't make smart decisions about healthcare when the price is camouflaged by employer-paid premiums and low-deductible insurance policies.Did you get that?
I will not tolerate a senator who
- Treats healthcare like the business it has clearly become, to the detriment of the people, and
- Thinks I'm likely to beg my doctor for ridiculous, expensive procedures because I just don't know any better.
I mean, is there something I'm missing here? Some logical step I, not being burdened with the wisdom of politicians, have failed to make? Because, how could anyone in their right mind be ok with this line of thinking?
Does he mean that I will quit smoking if I know I'd have to pay for a lung transplant if I needed one? I guess that's reasonable, but let's keep going with that. Does he mean that I will avoid falling prey to a genetically inherited predisposition to diabetes if I know I'd have to pay for insulin if I get diabetes? Does he mean that I won't drive a car anymore, because I might get in an accident and I'd have to pay for the emergency room visit? Does he mean that I will make sure I'm not born male, because then I'd have a 1 in 6 chance of getting prostate cancer? Does he mean that I will make sure I'm not born female, because then I'd have a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Jesus Christ, I should never have been born! I have a 100% chance of death! If only I'd had an insurance plan with a high deductible; then I could have made the smart decision to abort myself before I even started growing arms.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
More brilliance from Shakesville
Apparently, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Sarah Palin, got together with the Republicans and spent some time bashing President Obama, Democrats (commies...?), and healthcare reform.
Melissa McEwan said:
Melissa McEwan said:
That sounds like a real fun event. It's too bad I couldn't be there, but I was busy advocating for the equality of all women, from which Palin and Bachmann benefit even as they trade on being rightwing tokens who demean the very activism that has afforded them the public platform on which they bask in the luxury of their disdain.Spot on and beautifully worded -- as usual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)