More Mush and Peanut- the Abortion Debate

Woo hoo, am I on a roll! More of my self-styled conservative commentator "Mush" and his idiotic conversations with Peanut, his daughter. I'm making myself laugh, at any rate, and the little movie making website xtranormal.com is a blast. Viva la technology! Let me know what you think of my creations.

Mush and Peanut- my newest project

On Omnipotence and Omniscience, Or a Response to The Prophecy I &II

Well, sure. This is pretty fluffy too. But what the hey- fluffy is good, right?

I just watched the movies The Prophecy and the Prophecy II, and aside from strengthening my conviction that Christopher Walken is the creepiest guy ever (in a good way, mind you), these movies got me asking some questions. Here is a brief synopsis of the movie(s) if you are unfamiliar with them.

1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, how could a "war in heaven" ever happen, unless God wanted it to happen? Sure, yeah- the movies are 100% made up bunk, but there are people who believe that "Lucifer" was an angel who was cast out of heaven because he fomented an uprising against God. So the question stands.

2. Are angels corporeal beings? Beings of spirit?

3.Why would God "need" angels to do anything for God? Re: omnipotence and omniscience.

4. If angels have no "souls", but obviously have a measure of free will, what is a "soul" anyway?

5.When an angel "dies", where does it go?

6. Where did angels get the reputation of being "good"? If they do God's bidding, they are really just neutral actors. The one recorded instance of an angel acting on his own will gives us a version of the "creation of Hell" story.

The movies, of course, never really answer any of these questions. Nothing else answers them very clearly, either. All of these questions could be as easily applied to other religious ideas. Omnipotence and omniscience are particularly problematic- really, you could substitute about anything unsavory for "war in heaven" and really have the same outcome. Why is there war,famine, plague, teabaggers (sorry-had to put that in there), etc? If God knows/controls all, why the bad stuff? A lot of people answer with the old, "God's will is inscrutable" stuff, but that holds no water with me. I could almost buy it if it wasn't for this nagging conscience thing we have that makes us see things as "good" or "bad" instead of all just "God's will". Why make us like that? Why make us agonize over things, when we just as easily could have been programmed to respond with indifference? Unless, of course, God isn't benevolent, but is omnipotent and omniscient...

That's the answer I always arrive at. If I believe God exists, and is omniscient and omnipotent, I also have to believe God is malevolent, or best-case, neutral. Otherwise, I've got to conclude there is no God, or that God has limits, and can't make all of the bad stuff go away. Which isn't really what the movies were trying to get at, I suspect, but nevertheless, they make a good case for one of these answers.

The whole thing is such a house of cards. Of course, it doesn't help that I am skeptical by nature, but sheesh. How could anyone be all right with these internal contradictions? It was hard enough just suspending disbelief long enough to watch the movies. I can't imagine how hard it would be to suspend disbelief long enough to live by this stuff.

It's Been a While- Random Stuff Roundup

Yeah, I know. Seven months. That's a long time. I've been busy. Besides, I'm sure all three of you have found other amusements on the web. What has been inspiring me lately? Here's the list:

Retro Renovation

I love 20th century history- its one of my passions. I stumbled across the following website a while back, and I can honestly say I'm in love.

http://retrorenovation.com/

Save The Pink Bathrooms

A sister project from the folks at Retro Renovation, I love looking through the bathroom pics. I can't wait to upload the pic of my gram's sweet 1960's upstairs pink bathroom.

http://savethepinkbathrooms.com/

Marina Style Safeway Stores

Again, a tangent off of my 20th century love-a-thon. I've always liked those swoopy 60's rooflines. Now, I realize I'm not alone. We've got an old Marina Safeway building in our town that's standing vacant. I wonder if it is for sale? Perhaps being a grocer is in the cards for me...

Marina Safeway pic

Japan Cat Network

I love Japan. I love cats. What, then, was not to like in the CatFancy article I read about this awesome organization in Japan that is helping feral cats? I may have to take them up on their offer for the "volunteer vacationer" deal where they find you free accommodations in Japan if you volunteer part time while there.

Japan Cat Network

That's it for the "fluffy stuff". Spring has sprung, and hopefully I'll be lest tired/grouchy/beat down, and more prone to post.

Chris Muir- I Just Don't Get It

Is the funny comic thing SO over, and I just missed the memo? Apparently so. I've been casting about, looking (unsuccessfully) for a funny comic strip to read. Someone on Pandagon had linked to Chris Muir's Day By Day, and even though they had unfavorable things to say about the site, I followed the link. Big mistake.

I just have a few questions.

1. Why are the women always in various states of undress? I'm not just talking scantily clad, I'm talking running around in panties. Are women in panties funnier than fully-clothed women?

2. Why aren't the men in various states of undress? Are fully clothed men funnier, or more ironic?

3. Why do both of the men have skeevy facial hair, and pretty much look like each other, except one is black, and one is white? Is facial hair supposed to be funny? Or cool? I bet C. Muir has facial hair. Any takers?

4. Are the little character bios supposed to be jokes? They are the only funny thing on the site.

"Zed- 45 year old seen-it-all ex military sniper. Not ready for the civilian workforce, he takes on any work that will help his family, daughters Mari and Kiko, and wife Sam."

"Sam- Smoldering redhead who finds herself as a new mom with two daughters at age 39 with her husband Zed. An engineer, she's often in conflict with her overwhelming feminine side."

From this, I can conclude a few things: 1.) Cartoon ex-snipers have more fun than real ex-snipers (I know one. You wouldn't want to write a comic about him. On second thought, maybe you would...) 2.) Chris Muir has never been a woman. Or an engineer. 3.)In an earlier cartoon, he must explain the logic behind Sam the engineer dropping out of the workforce to raise the kids, while the ex sniper who isn't "ready" for civilian jobs takes whatever he can scrounge. I'll bet that explanation has something to do with Sam's "overwhelming" femininity that "compels" her to the mommy track.

5. What's up with "smoldering" Sam and her twin baybees? Why is she always juggling them? They have no point. Kinda like real baybees, only these comic baybees have cool Japanese names. Why are people fascinated with the idea of twins?

6. Chris Muir is a little confused. Check out the 8/29 strip, second panel. http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/29/

Which of these things is not like the other? Oh, yeah. "No Child Left Behind" was a Bush policy, not something concocted by the "liberals". Unlike tofu, of course. Tofu is definitely a liberal plot. But why, then, does Muir have hip ex-sniper Zed and brainy-but-smouldering-and so VERY feminine Sam naming their spawn after...Tofu eaters?! Also, in the 8/19 panel, he has hot-as-hell redhead sexpot Sam breastfeeding one of the twins, but on 8/24, she's bottle feeding. Does she breastfeed one twin, and bottle feed the other? Is this perhaps some cruel experiment? Or maybe Muir doesn't know squat about baybees (or women), and just thinks its hawt to draw women being motherly.

7. Is this a political strip, ala Doonesbury, or a parody of a political strip? I hope it's the later. If it's the former... Read this strip- http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/09/01/ Where is the Republican National Convention again? Oh, yeah. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Wow. Show me the unfunny, Mr. Muir.

I Am A Feminist Because...

I'll see if I can start one of those goofy chain-letter things where people answer a question, then pass it on. I'm talking to you, my big Three Readers!

I am a feminist because...

I think there are plenty of reasons to declare me incompetent that have absolutely nothing to do with what is between my legs. As a matter of fact, I think my genitalia are some of my least offensive features.

What say you?

Entitlement: Political Edition

Today, I saw the story about John Edwards' affair.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/edwards_affair

I can't say I'm surprised, but I CAN say that I'm pissed. And no, I'm not some anti-sex prude. I don't really care who someone has sex with, as long as it is consensual, and doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't a part of a larger betrayal of trust. But when it crosses one of those lines, then yeah, I have a problem with it.

I have an even bigger problem with politicians engaging in stuff like this, because I think it really does show a huge character flaw when someone will willingly lie to, hurt, or exploit a family member.

If Edwards would willingly break his word to Elizabeth, why wouldn't he break his word to the American public?

I am particularly upset by Edwards' own take on the situation:

After the story broke Friday, Edwards released a statement that said, "In
2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was
disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake, and I
told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her
forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did
not tell the public."

He admits this was disloyal to his family AND his core beliefs, yet he did it anyway. He was "honest" with his wife, after the fact, but he elected not to tell the public. Why?

"I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices," he said. "With my family,
I took responsibility for my actions in 2006, and today I take full
responsibility publicly."

Because he was ashamed. Even though he had been disloyal to his core values, and was readying to campaign to be the President, and earlier ran for Vice President, and frequently questioned his opponents' "loyalty" to their "core values". But the public didn't deserve to know about his own disloyalty? And how "honest" has he been about the affair, even when pushed?

Last month, the Enquirer carried another story — the blaring headline
referred to an Edwards "love child" — stating that its reporters had accosted
Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel where he had met with Hunter after her child's
birth. Edwards called it "tabloid trash," but he generally avoided reporters'
inquiries, as did his former top aides.
He said in his statement Friday he
had "used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it," and he
called that "being 99 percent honest."

99 percent honest, eh? I wonder if he would be "99 percent" honest about his campaign funding sources, or if elected, "99 percent" honest about why he called a military strike on another country.

Does that sound familiar at all?

So why would Edwards do this?

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was
special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat
me up feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up
myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to
help my family and others who need my help."

Aw, c'mon, John. I bet I could beat you up more than you've beaten yourself up.

Frankly, I'm not really getting the vibe that John has beaten himself up over this much at all. Why?

In an interview, scheduled to air on ABC News' "Nightline" Friday night,
Edwards said the tabloid was correct when it reported on his meeting with Hunter
at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

That sounds like the act of a guilt-ridden, repentant man, doesn't it?

This just makes me sick. But what makes me sicker is the defense this behavior is getting from people who know a thing or two about the patriarchy, entitlement, and being left to twist in the political wind. This from Amanda Marcotte, over at Pandagon:

Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker,
and so this is officially None Of Our Business, and anyone who dogged him on
this story should be fired on the principle that they don’t know journalism from
rooting around in the trash. Hypocrisy is a story; human weakness is
not.

I’m not going to get on a high horse about his judgment, because
he didn’t get on a high horse with me about mine. That’s all I’m going to
say about that.

Only, of course Edwards HAD been a hypocrite, denouncing Bill Clinton for his sex scandal back in 1999. But that isn't really the point. The point is, yeah, a person's personal life IS a valid story, when that person's deportment in their personal life just seethes with patriarchal entitlement, and he is willing to callously walk over the people beneath him when those people no longer have any particular use for him.

And how did he handle that whole ridiculous screed against Amanda, when she was blogging for him? He should have stood up for her; he should have told the Catholic League and her other detractors that her personal views, while expressed in ways that might have been inappropriate, were hers, and had no bearing on her work for him. He should have defended her, but he didn't. I cannot believe, not for one minute, that he would allow her to be hired to write for his campaign without knowing her personal beliefs on the religion issue. As long as her audacity was working for him, it was fine. When it wasn't... She was of the disposable class, so he let her twist. Just like he let his wife twist.

Edwards, sadly, is not alone. Many, if not most politicians have these feelings of entitlement. Just like John, they start to feel they are "special", and become "egocentric". The privilege they have is unfathomable. They get enmeshed in a win-at-all-costs mentality.

And we let them do it. Every time we give this kind of behavior a pass, we feed the ego machine. I don't want to get into dictating morality, but if a person actively engages in a monogamous relationship, then violates the parameters they themselves set for that relationship, it has wider implications, ethical implications we can't ignore.

And yes, I believe this is a feminist issue. A contractual obligation is no less a contractual obligation because it is made with a woman in the context of a marriage. The old "Boys will be boys" trope has allowed men to skip out of infidelity unscathed for a long time, and women are simply held to a different standard of accountability. The "slut shaming" that goes on with the Lewinskys and the Hunters involved in these high-profile cases does no service to women anywhere. The person primarily responsible for ethical misconduct in an affair is the person who is breaking their vows. Period.

I don't care how "good" Edwards or any other politician is on other issues- when they are guilty of severe ethical misconduct, they need to be called on it. We need to stop enabling bad behavior, and hold politicians to higher ethical standards. We have to make the hard choice to speak out against and vote out politicians who can't be trusted. Why? Well, to sum it up, in Edwards' own words:

"If we want to live in a moral, honest just America and if we want to live
in a moral and just world, we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to
do it."