Jewish Vagina Illegal

Fallacy of Special Pleading, from the New York Times:

The case [in Britian] rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism, ruled the British Supreme Court.

“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”

The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness. They also disagree on the issue of whether an Orthodox leader is entitled to speak for the entire community. Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism here, said the lower court’s ruling, if upheld, would help make Judaism more inclusive.

Basing one's religious identity on a mother's vagina having the same faith is, well, ridiculous, ruled the Court. Moreover, no "Jewish race" exists, and "ethnicity" is suspect. Indeed, to use ethnicity violates national laws, but using religious belief and practices does not. But many Jews want it both ways: They insist Judaism is a "race" (which it is not), an "ethnicity" (which it can be, and so can gays), and not a "faith" (that's all that's left) to keep elitism special. Being "Chosen" can be difficult to understand.

How High the Moon? Barney Frank's Gap

Credit card companies are rushing to increase interest rates to historic highs of more than 30 percent, cut credit limits, and add new fees, even for customers who pay their bills on time.

Lenders are making the moves in advance of tougher federal regulations for credit cards scheduled to take effect on Feb. 22. The new rules will limit how companies can modify credit card agreements, specifically prohibiting them from retroactively raising interest rates and fees on existing balances.

US Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the Financial Services Committee and is a leader in the effort to revamp credit card policies, said banks have “abused’’ the nine-month period granted them to re-tool their practices. “I didn’t think they would be as blatant as they were about doing this,’’ he said. “There’s no justification for raising rates retroactively. This is really just a way for them to make more money.’’

Source: Boston.com

The Real Unemployment

17.5%

In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.

Wicked? SOMA Anyone? The Stud in the Arena?

(h/t: Why I Hate Jesus: Because He Is Not the Son of Gawd)

I knew these guys from the Boot Camp and Folsom Prison. One insisted he ram his ramrod into my rising sun, the other insisted I bend over to find Jesus on the floor. I fell to the floor and worshiped -- who and what, I don't remember. The Folsom Barracks had just let its inmates out. I wonder what Lonnie Frisbee was doing that night.

Ouch!

Sweet Melissa, otherwise a bright woman, has a hard-on for our philandering drunken rehabbed mayor that caused Proposition 8 to lose, but Truff reminds her:

Gavin Newsom is our own Sarah Palin: Style over substance and, now, utterly unelectable. . .

I liken Newsom to the Dan Quayle joke told by Robin Williams: He's one taco short of a full combo plate. Or he's the bulb that GE forgot to plug in. My family calls him the Fascist Rev. Ted Haggard, who needs the meth. Maybe he's the big enchilada without beans?

I think Melissa needs to take a vacation and look at the bimbo on PolkStrasse without rose-colored glasses.

Reification of Mental Judgments

A Gay Species Waxing Philosophically

Most common judgments that we humans make can be broadly distributed as follows:

1. True/False
2. Good/Bad
3. Right/Wrong
4. Is/Is-Not
5. Should/Should-Not

Indeed, I want to suggest that the overwhelming proportion of our decision-making consists of the five types of judgment so identified.

FACTS

For example, in some cases, these judgments take facts to be either true or false, but we regard them as "facts," not as the "truth." For example, a friend asks me if I have seen my beloved recently, and I tell her, "true, I have." That is a fact. But that fact does not, then, suddenly become the "truth," much less "The Truth." Rather, the claim is simply "true" that I have seen my beloved recently -- no metaphysical transcendent extra-reality truth-condition supervenes on the factual claim. The claim is either factually true or false, but that merely makes the FACT true or false, but it does not instantiate a higher order of TRUTH.

VALUES

For another example, I value the goodness of democracy, justice, courage, liberty, equality, and friendship -- among my many values. Those values I esteem, I've determined are "good," and those value I revile, I've determined are "bad." Some examples of "bad" are tyranny, lack of choices, boring people, Dan Brown novels, and religious claims of supernatural. In making these "good" and "bad" judgments, I have simply evaluated the principle under consideration for its value. That value does not suddenly become THE GOOD, or THE BAD, as if another metaphysically-transcendent extra-reality is conferred on my human judgment of good or bad.

ACTIONS

And so forth. If I evaluate an action to be "right" or "wrong," that decision occurs in my head, as an act of human evaluation, but whether an action is right or wrong is not then metaphysically and transcendentally transformed into THE RIGHT or into THE WRONG, it is rather my decision -- in my head -- that the action was "right" or wrong. No extra-reality, transcendental metaphysical property blesses my decision with supernatural grace.

EXISTENT

Ditto, for whether something exists or not. I happen to be quite confident of my existence, so the proposition, "I am" or "Gay Species is," is ontologically confirmed. If pricked, I bleed. If wounded, I cry. If loved, I reciprocate. Conversely, I do not happen to think "Pegasus exists" can be shown, and since I know of no flying or winged horse that has ever existed, the proposition, "Pegasus is not," is an ontological commitment. But whether something exists, and my ontological commitment for existence or not, does not metaphysically transform the existent into BEING or NON-BEING -- as some extra-ontological constitutive fact of reality. Something either "is" or it "is-not."

PRESCRIPTION

Ditto, for the propositions involving the word "should." I should change the linens today, but if I do, it does not transform the prescriptive into SHOULDNESS, as if some universal law binds me to the COMMAND "change linen." No metaphysically-transcendent reality supervenes on MY "should" or "should-not" decisions, that makes them into ETERNAL COMMANDS of heavenly reality or Platonic transcendence. Even the Universal Moral Imperative, "Do No Harm or Injury," while abstract, has its applications only in our actions.

REIFICATION

In these five brief examples, we can see the tendency of humans to REIFY our mental judgments. Reification is one of those words, like solipsism, one rarely encounters outside of philosophy -- but how many people encounter agoraphobia outside psychiatry? To "reify" means to make existent something that is immaterial, such as making human judgments into "objects." As our first example showed, making a true/false decision does not constitute THE TRUTH, and as our second example showed, making a good/bad evaluation does not constitute THE GOOD. Neither THE TRUTH nor THE GOOD exist outside of our minds, and to think that they do is to reify human judgments into abstract entities of existence.

HEGELIAN NONSENSE

The implications of this behavior are significant. Perhaps the most nefarious "reifier" in Western Philosophy was the German Idealist Georg F. Hegel. Perhaps his most famous triadic reification is the notion that THESIS and ANTITHESIS concretely establish a SYNTHESIS -- in stark contrast to a mental contradiction. Hegel turned logic inside out. But, Hegel did not stop at such nonsense, but he went on to suggest that the sum total of these SYNTHESES lead inevitably to the ABSOLUTE. Now, if you are following this lesson, you probably are asking, "absolute what?" But that's the point. There is no "what," only the ABSOLUTE. If you're scratching your head in bewilderment, good for you. If you are bewildered that contraries constitute a "synthesis" rather than a "contradiction," grade yourself smarter than the 19th century German.

DEIFICATION

The reification of our immaterial thoughts into some mythical and mysterious existential abstract entity that transcends all reality, all truth, all good, and all rectitude is utter bullshit, taking a simple decision we all make virtually all the time -- and making these elementary mental judgments in our heads into some formal abstract existential entity outside our heads. Yes, we make these decisions in our heads, but those judgments do not transform them into a celestial, transcendent, and immanent TRUTH, GOOD, RIGHT, BEING, or COMMAND.

Perhaps, tt is rather provocative, if not somewhat interesting, that our thoughts of GOD seem to correlate with these reifications. GOD is thought to be that BEING of TRUTH, GOOD, RIGHT, that COMMANDS. But, poof, the magic dragon is slain, since our immaterial thoughts do NOT constitute abstract existential metaphysical transcendent entities. They are simply thoughts in our head, like thoughts of Sugar-Plum Fairies, Unicorns, and Winged Horses.

POSTSCRIPT:

Readers interested in the philosophical language correlating these mental judgments may consider the following:

1. True/False -- FACTS -- Epistemology
   
2. Good/Bad -- VALUES -- Axiology
3. Right/Wrong -- ACTIONS -- Praxeology
   
4. Is/Is-Not -- REALITY -- Ontology
   
5. Should/Should-Not -- PRESCRIPTIONS -- Deontology/Ethics
   

In the English language, you can detect reifications rather easily, as they are generally preceded by the definite article, "THE," or capitalized, or made into a "-NESS." This generalization should not be taken too literally, but merely a suspicion alert when encountered.

Here endeth the lesson.

Democrats Can't Jump

Paul Krugman usually gets more wrong than right, but his analysis of President Obama is more accurate than not:

Which brings me to the Anzio analogy.

The World War II battle of Anzio was a classic example of the perils of being too cautious. Allied forces landed far behind enemy lines, catching their opponents by surprise. Instead of following up on this advantage, however, the American commander hunkered down in his beachhead — and soon found himself penned in by German forces on the surrounding hills, suffering heavy casualties. [emphasis mine]

Imagine. The President and Democrats can bailout Wall Street in less than a month, but cannot pass health care reform, environmental reforms, financial commercial reforms, end the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cannot stop Israeli settlements in the West Bank, will not allow an investigation into U.S. war crimes and Israeli war crimes, will not repeal DADT and DOMA, and other urgent policy after ten months. He apparently is waiting for a sign from the heavens before deciding the next step in Afghanistan, meanwhile the natives back home are restless -- jobless, homeless, and tired of waiting -- while Wall Street drinks champagne, dines on caviar and canapes, and the citizens' corps.

Which is worse? A monarchical King Geo the Oblivious with a Shadow Dick Government that gets the wrong things done, or Pastor Pragmatist that cannot decide which sermon to preach, while his Chicken Little's argue whose K and J Street interests to support?

Americans and Philosophy -- Pragmatism

A Gay Species' Extended Essay

The "N" Word Meets the "F" Word

We usually do not think of Americans as being very philosophical, because philosophy requires rigorous thought, analysis, and extensive reading -- three tasks Americans perform with amazing lassitude. Of the industrialized West, for example, only Turks are less likely to accept evolution as a natural fact than Americans. (Kick Arab butt.)

In a real and genuine sense, the "manifest destiny" heralded by the 19th century pioneers that settled the West Coast, suddenly morphed and ossified into Religious Awakening, Version 7, Bill and Gelinda Gates, presiding, by religious fundamentalism as vapid and archaic as the Middle East. Suddenly, ignorance, to wit cable infotainment channels and even PBS's News Hour, are so simplistic even my Down Syndrome brother pleads, "please, this is stupid, mom, change the channel." He thinks the Three Stooges got more done than the Democrats.

Among America's many inventions, however, is a philosophy known as "pragmatism." The true founder of this train of thought was Charles Sanders Pierce, who wrote no books, and achieved no fame, until his successors -- William James, George Santayana, and Willard Quine -- rescued pragmatism from oblivion. Like most things "American," pragmatism is super simplistic: Whatever works best is true, valuable, and desirable. Of course, by that standard, slavery worked for the Confederate states that bought labor, rather than "paid" for it.

But pragmatism is very infective because of its simplicity. Who does not agree that we should "chose what works best?" The only question that is implicit -- never explicit -- is WHO gets to decide? Therein, is the quandry. No one disputes the pragmatic benefits of a Cost-Benefit Analysis in making individual decisions. Even your Gay Species, an expert in Cost-Benefit Analysis, heralds the CBA in our personal lives (and does on his Androphilia blog).

Now, in our daily affairs and practical matters, the pragmatism of the Cost-Benefit Analysis is an excellent means of making personal choices -- everything from buying a new cell phone, home, to auto -- whatever costs the least and provides the most benefit -- is pragmatic for individuals to choose. Indeed, I think boyfriends, jobs, travel, and virtually every other choice we make can be easily benefited from pragmatism's Cost-Benefit Analysis. But, then, I limit the CBA to individual choice, not collective choice.

But, the problem with pragmatism -- as America's first pragmatic presidents have shown -- is that CBA works in INDIVIDUAL decisions, but not in COLLECTIVE decisions. If everyone chose his own Cost-Benefit Analysis politically, we'd all be screwed, financially bankrupt, special interests extorting us, and the moral depraved ruling over us. For "what works best," is not a standard that the "collective good" can embrace without concentration camps, slavery, suffrage by educated males only, exploitation of and by undocumented labor, and capitalist greed taking the "best," and leaving the rest with the "worst." Best for WHO is not irrelevant, unless you are a pragmatist, utilitarian, or folk psychologist.

But readers are sure to object that our President is a pragmatist, just like his predecessor Richard Nixon. Can the Black Man be wrong, if he embraces pragmatism? Other readers will note the cozy relationship between American pragmatism and the British "moral" theory known as "Utilitarianism," also called "consequentialism." The lineage is indeed deep and well-heeled. These birds of a feather do flock together. Both embrace a form of "whatever works best," not simply as an individual guideline, but as a national, even moral, guideline. Hey, if it works, do it.

Other readers will note a family resemblance between pragmatism and utilitarianism with folk psychology, the latter of which proclaims: Whatever feels good is good, so do it. Yes, I know some of us might object to that standard, but at least twenty males that raped a young girl in Richmond, CA, had pragmatism, utilitarianism, and folk psychology in their hip pocket -- and cameras photo-journalizing "whatever worked best" for the 20-or-so males that raped, abused, and tortured the ONE 15-year old female. What's the "consequence" of ONE abused, raped, and left-for-dead female when TWENTY young male studs get to use their iPhones to record the rape of the 21st century? Pragmatism, utilitarianism, and folk psychology prevailed. They also used their cocks, which is very pragmatic.

So, now we behold the "intellectual tradition" in which pragmatism, utilitarianism, and folk psychology all find common ground -- the "American Common Ground" of "whatever works for the most." Indeed, according to pragmatism the only "truth" and "meaning" for us humans is "what works." So, if slave labor works, it's American. So, if undocumented labor works, it's American. So, if the majority abhor same-sex relations, it's American. So, the "greatest good for the greatest number" during that evening in Richmond, Ca, was when 20 males raped 1 female, threw her overboard (or under a picnic table), and hoped to hell she died lest she not agree with the 20 males that raped her got "what worked for them."

Do you now see shades of Pastor Obama? Barry Obama cannot stand for "principle," except the pragmatic principle that, "whatever works is best for America." He stands as a "post-racial," a "post-partisan," and totally-committed pragmatist working for what's best for Obama, just like the 20 male rapists did of their 15-year old female. Oh, he may preach a different sermon each week, he may kiss the "sisters" that bow down before his phallus, he may think it will all "work itself out in the wash," just like Civil Rights did in 1964. But that is pragmatism, whatever works today may not work tomorrow.

Besides, a little black tokenism goes a long way, and he won't repeal DADT, DOMA, two Democratic Party fulcrums of inequality that the Democrats still support, but he will sign a "hate crimes" bill to aid his fellow trial attorneys in need of more work at the expense of 3% of the population too dead to notice. Hey, "what works best for attorneys" works best for Rahm Emanuel, Pastor Obama, Rabbi Summers, and the Goldman Sachs of the world. If it does not work for YOU, you just don't see the "utility" of pragmatism, utilitarianism, and folk psychology at work. Contact Reid or Pelosi, if you think they think differently.

As you no doubt know, more "trial attorney" exist than "homophiles." Whatever works best for the majority and keep the Pastor ensconced behind white walls seems to work for THEM.

"Gay Apartheid in Amerika"

David Mixner is pissed. He writes:

First and foremost, Enough!

We have poured over $100,000,000 in the last two years into efforts where Americans feel it is there obligation to vote on our freedom. The entire concept is repugnant and disgusting. That we for the last three decades have been drawn into this game of 'this is politics' and fighting these ballot box horrors so that maybe by in five, ten or twenty years we will have enough victories to force our federal government to protect our freedom is simply not acceptable anymore. Imagine the good we could have done with all that money. Imagine the civil rights movement we could have built if we had the leadership that was willing to think out of the box and put it on the line.

Second, call this campaign against us what it is - Gay Apartheid.

Refuse to allow any of our fellow Americans, President Obama or our allies to view this as a political issue who time hasn't quite come. America is in the process of creating a system of Gay Apartheid. We will not quietly sit and accept it. All over the place, this nation is creating one set of laws for LGBT Americans and another set for all other Americans. That is the classic definition of Apartheid. Either our political allies are for Gay Apartheid or against it. If they are against it, they must fight with us and no longer duck like President Obama did in Maine and Washington. There is no half way in fighting Apartheid.

Amen, brother. Just like the Israelis, they "bait-and-switch," and cannot be trusted. They build walls, and then offer to remove the nails -- one nail at a time. Where was the "party of the people" in ME? Why did the Pastor stay silent in his Rectory? Why did the DNC not recommend a "no" on Question 1? Why is Wall Street bailed out, but not Main Street aided? What is the Punch and Judy show by Reid and Pelosi that is a national joke, but unfunny to hurting Americans? I think Americans are getting ANGRY at betrayal, at the corporate ownership of our government, and the prostitutes that say one thing but do another. John Avarosis of AmericaBlog opines:

First off, I don't think we needed a mass blast email to tell us that the election of Barack Obama as president wasn't about real change. We get that now. What is interesting, however, is that Team Obama is feeling the need to blast an email out to their supporters explaining why many of the things that candidate Obama promised aren't happening, or worse, are being thrown overboard. It also sounds, from this email, like the blame is being shifted to the very people who voted for Obama (more than a bit ironic). If change doesn't happen, it's because you haven't supported the President enough.

With "change" like the Obama Administration and Democratic Super Majorities, who needs inertia? Hell, King Geo the Oblivious got more done with divided government than ten months of a Democratic rule, and now THEY want to blame the Republicans for their own failures?

Wall Street Crooks -- White House Friends

Federal prosecutors charged 14 hedge fund employees, lawyers and other investors with trading on insider information on Thursday, in a series of criminal complaints that all appear to be connected to charges already filed against the hedge fund billionaire Raj Rajaratnam,

reports the New York Times.

It’s kind of amazing that with all the uproar over the Galleon business, nobody is making much hay over the recent revelations about the AIG bailouts, which make former Goldman chief and former New York Fed chairman Stephen Friedman look every bit as guilty of insider machinations as Raj Rajaratnam of the Galleon fund.

It’s impossible to grasp the totality of Friedman/Goldman’s grossness with regard to the AIG story without a little context. Remember the basic timeline. In the middle of the mortgage bubble, Goldman Sachs found a patsy-buffoon named Joe Cassano at a little corner of AIG called AIG Financial Products, or AIGFP. Cassano was recklessly writing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of credit default swaps for banks like Goldman and Deutsche, essentially insuring certain investments for these banks, including extremely risky mortgage-backed deals.

Goldman took out billions of these CDS positions with Cassano, who had written upwards of $440 billion of these CDS without having even a fraction of the money he would have needed to cover that bet in the event of a disaster of the type that actually ended up taking place, specifically a downgrade of AIG’s credit rating that forced Cassano to pony up wads of cash to cover those positions.

reports Matt Taibbi.

But, Goldman Sachs and Galleon run Obama's Amerika, just like the Rabid Right Wing did under King Geo the Oblivious. When Wall Street tells Obama to "jump," he asks Geithner and Summers, "how high?

McClatchy News Services Reports

Warning sign for Democrats:

They're losing independents

By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

FAIRFAX STATION, Va. — President Barack Obama and the Democrats have a problem heading into next year's elections for control of Congress — they're losing independents to the Republicans and parts of their own Democratic base to apathy.

Strong majorities of independents turned away from Democrats and voted Republican in both Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday, a key defection signaling that they could be up for grabs heading into the 2010 elections. They went for the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Virginia by a margin of 66 percent to 33 percent, and in New Jersey by 60 percent to 40 percent, according to exit polls.

Goldman Sachs: Fuck Americans

• Story | How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash

• Story | Goldman takes on new role: taking away people's homes
• Story | Goldman left foreign investors holding the subprime bag
• Graphic | Goldman and subprime mortgages
• Video | McClatchy's Goldman Sachs probe
• Video | Goldman's changing role in subprime mortgages
• Video | Goldman Sachs' secret bets
• Video | One couple stands up to Goldman Sachs
• On the Web | State-by-state data on troubled mortgages

RAPE IS A GOLDMAN VALUE
The "Cut" Pricks Rule

Too Late: Yes, Masta

Arcade Fire -- Neighborhood No. 3: Power Out

There goes the neighborhood.

And the black chicks sing:

YES MASTA, Yes,

PBS's Nova: Becoming Human, Part I

Last night, PBS's Nova premiered the first of its three-part "Becoming Human." The first hour-long segment was titled, "First Steps," and the program is a home run. First of all, it is beautifully cinematographed, the narration (with one exception of redundancy) is excellent, the animated graphics stunning, and the story fascinating.

The first episode concerns one principal issue: How and why did a mammalian species develop bipedally? 150 years after Darwin's Origin of Species, we possess finer fossils and technology to begin that answer. Sometime around 6 million years ago, the apes and human species began to diverge in Africa, and we know one of the reasons is "energy." Bipedalism is more efficient physiologically and calorically than our cousins who used "all fours" for ambulation.

The "other" question is why did three million years pass before humanoid brains begin to grow substantially? And the answer to this question only reinforces one of evolutionary biology's central tenets: Adaptability. The geology of our ancestral Kenya and Chad began climate changes which required the human-like species to develop more sophisticated levels of adapting to these 500,000 year changes -- things like reasoning, planning, anticipating, storing, tools, fire and cooking, the use of meats in addition to vegetation -- all require a more flexible brain capacity.

Most PBS stations repeat Nova programs, so if you missed the first episode, catch it when reaired, or online at Becoming Human. The series continues for two more weeks in the same time slot and is not to be missed.

ME's Question 1 -- The Postmortem

Flickr / CarbonNYC

Maine's Question No. 1's recission of marriage equality passed yesterday by a slim 2.5% of the vote. Another narrow loss for civil and human rights for all. The contemptible silence from the Democratic party and its leaders should now demonstrate their lip service is just that -- lip service. They want our bucks, but will not buck for us. With friends like the DNC, who needs enemies?

Maine's religious affiliations, according to Wikipedia, are as follows:

• Christian – 82%
  • Protestant – 45%
    • Baptist (mostly American Baptist) – 16%
    • Methodist (mostly United Methodist Church with 31.689 members) – 9%
    • Episcopalian – 8%
    • United Church of Christ (29,122 members) / Congregational – 8%
    • Pentecostal – 6%
    • Lutheran – 3%
    • Other Protestant or general Protestant – 10%
  • Roman Catholic (283.024 members) – 37%
  • Other Christian – 1%

The Yes on 1, supported by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine and the National Organization for Marriage -- an amalgam of Fundamentalist homophobic institutions -- were sufficiently large enough to repeal marriage equality. Without any countervalence by major political parties and figures, their message of division, inequality, and privilege prevailed.

It is now clear -- after CA's Proposition 8 and ME's Question 1 -- that religious bigotry is a powerful political force from East to West, North to South, in the United States. In CA, Proposition 8 won by the confluence of three factors: (1) Invasion by Mormons and their well-funded supporters; (2) incompetence and negligence by EQCA; and (3) unacceptable fascist rhetoric and actions by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

But Maine learned from CA's mistakes. Messrs. Connolly and Sullivan organized and hired capable advertisers, responded to the false claims, and presented marriage equality in the broadest, most sympathetic, and politically perspicacious approach possible. They even made families one of the core reasons to keep marriage equality -- a reason that trumps most other objections. They were well-funded and equally well-manned. Still, with all these advantages, equality lost. It should not have even been close.

We now know one unassailable fact: Religious bigotry, fueled from pulpits and ambos, proclaimed in pastorals and right-wing prayer meetings, preached in parochial schools and church schools, has allowed reactionary fanatics to use their preferential tax-free status to abuse political freedom of speech and political action, to impose their narrow, one-sided view of life at the expense of others. The issue is not that religion is alien and hostile to equality; it is that it denies the equality and equal access to others. It's one thing to advocate mitvots, commandments, and laws and prejudice for one's own flock, it's quite another to impose these narrow views onto others.

Arguably, one way to fight back is to fight these groups' "tax-free" status. The laws are quite clear on tax exemption and political speech, and in principle, they should forfeit their tax exempt status. Hit them in the pocketbook, so to speak. Alas, to respond to their illegal acts with appeals to forfeit their tax status seems vindictive, and any number of maneuvers avail for religious organizations to create PACs to protect their sacred right to fleece equality and the flock. But whatever considerations we contemplate, we must acknowledge religion is the foe of equality, and a very duplicitous, privileged foe it is.

No good reason suggests representing the marriage equality issue any time soon. The results -- now 31 for 31 against equality -- need a drastically revisited strategy, and a significant change in religious affiliation. As noted earlier, "no religious affiliation" has lurched to 15% of the population, almost entirely because of younger voters. If the electorate resembled the demographics of the 18 - 28 age groups, equality wins. It's the geriatric religious set that offsets them. And while Republicans in decades past may been the forebears of human and civil rights, that appellation has changed radically in the past decades. It is "Independents" that hold the key -- individuals not aligned to any "party," but whose fiscal conservatism and social liberalism -- the best lynchpin. So, Republicans and Religious are our foes, and Democrats are not our allies. These facts need to percolate for awhile, and need to be massaged with another set of facts: Voter ANGER. Obama supporters are pissed that Candidate Obama is nothing like President Obama, and Republican affiliation (Democrats are not far behind) is plummeting. These facts may portend the evolution of a new, populist third party, that reaps the benefits from voter anger with Democrats and Republicans, neither of which can be claimed as our friends. If such a third party movement is born, we should seriously consider becoming its first members. Our dance card with the other two parties leaves most of us feeling jilted.

Plutocracy Prevails in Gotham

With $100 MILLION of his own money, Michael Bloomberg [supra.] has purchased [sic] his third term as Mayor of Gotham. Goldman Sachs broke out the champagne and canapes, while Bloomberg supporters ate frankfurters, chicken fingers, and pizza. After all, it was supposedly Marie Antoinette that told the masses "to eat cake." Of course, she meant sponge cake, but who notices when you're head lies in a pool of blood? Monarchs should conceal their crowns. Democracy loses again?

Democrats' Health Care Plans -- Worse than Nothing?

Let's hypothesize that your Gay Species "falls down and goes boom." Let's further assume he scraped his knee, with a deep gouge and fascia wound. He can do one of three things:

1. Do nothing.
2. Clean the wound, and cover with a bandage to protect.
3. Hide the wound with bandage and let it fester.

Which of the above choices is the WORST choice?

We all know the best choice is the "No. 2." But, I suspect you will agree with your Gay Species that the WORST choice is "No. 3." Concealing the wound is worse than "nothing." Slapping a bandage to hide the wound is worse than nothing.

These choices are akin to the Democrats' Health Plans. All of them "hide the wound with a bandage and let the problem fester." Let Congress and the President know that No. 2, not No. 3, is your choice.

I would even argue No. 1 is preferable to the histrionics of No. 3. Concealment is no solution, and is worst than nothing.

Maine Appears Ready to Sack Marriage Equality

Maine voters narrowly favor Question 1, which would reverse the state's law legalizing same sex marriage, reports Public Policy Polling.

At 51 - 47%, it's within the margin of error but there has been slight movement in support of the question since a PPP poll two weeks ago showed it knotted up at 48.

This is disappointing, because the No on Question 1 team, unlike EQCA, is very professional and well-heeled. Moreover, its principals did not vacation in Europe this past week.

Maine's pro-1 voters are largely Catholics -- not California's Mormons and Catholics -- that favor marriage inequality. If Question 1 prevails and repudiates equality, perhaps it is time to take time and rethink the message, the voter, and why inequality seems so damn popular.

UPDATE: The Bangor (ME) Daily News reports 15% of precincts at 9:20 p.m. E.S.T. 52.5% have voted "NO." While encouraging, the Maine Medical Marijuana Act is passing by 65%. Reports from the "No on 1" campaign indicate a huge surge in voter turnout.

UPDATE II: With 80% of the precincts counted, Yes is prevailing by the SAME percentage of Proposition 8 in 2008 -- by all of 2%. It's not over until the fat lady sings, but unless "absentee" and "paper ballot" requests are the tipping point, it looks as if -- again -- equality is not an American Value. I expect Question 1 to win narrowly, by which I mean human equality loses. My postmortem will be reserved for the final vote -- just in case the tooth fairy is leaving a surprise for last moment. I congratulate the fine work the Maine No on 1 team performed, thank the hundreds who flew to Maine to get out the vote, and who sent Maine their dollars. This defeat cannot be laid at our feet, but at the feet of "inequality" and silence from the Democratic National Committee and a President Obama who did not have the guts to state a position.

One Year Later -- Sorely Disappointed

One year ago, I rejoiced at the election of Barack Obama, the first candidate I genuinely wanted to see elected. Nine months after taking office, I can only state that I am sorely disappointed in President Obama, who bears little resemblance to Candidate Obama. Indeed, if one expression captures these nine months, it is "bait-and-switch," the tactic to say one thing, and do another. The list of "bait-and-switch" antics are so numerous and vile, I prefer to let readers pull a list together for themselves.

As one of many examples:

Obama is seeking to protect here the illegal Bush/Cheney NSA surveillance scheme -- that Obama was once depicted as a grave threat to the Constitution and the ultimate expression of lawlessness. Yet now, Obama insists that the very same program is such an important "state secret" that no court can even adjudicate whether the law was broken. When Democrats voted to immunize lawbreaking telecoms last year, they repeatedly justified that by stressing that Bush officials themselves were not immunized and would therefore remain accountable under the law.

David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 Campaign Manager, interviewed by Richard Wolfe, explains that Obama is totally a pragmatist -- in other words, "whatever works in the moment." The pragmatic approach to facts and values and praxis offers pretty much the same quasi-non-commitment double talk. The previous "pragmatist" in the White House was . . . are you ready . . . Richard Nixon. He did not have any enduring values either.

Losing Our Religion

"Tell Us Holy One, Who Is the Big Mac's Patty?"

Thank gawd. A Poll conducted by Trinity College found that 15% of the American population have no religious affiliation, making them the "fastest growing segment of the religious population." While Roman Catholic and Evangelicalism have "leveled" over the past decades, liberal Protestantism has plummeted. While only 10% of this 15% consider themselves "atheists," the other ninety percent really do make up god in their own image.

Frankly, it's the same kind of god that Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman postulated -- the great Machinist in the Cosmos. Gone, are the Big Leather Daddy, the Palestinian Hippie Faith Healer, and Virgin Mothers that Her Son's Whore. Really unpopular is the Big YHWH, Elohim, the one with "wacky stories" in the Bible. Even those individuals that did not read the scholarship of Thomas L. Thompson, the Biblical Scholar, figured-out the Moses Myth and Messiah Myth are too wacky for people of the 21st century. Angels rape daughters, women turn into salt. Please. Cutting penises gets you concentration camps.

Bondage & Discipline

But fear and guilt, which usually motivates faith, has a way of raising its ugly head every thirty years or so. It seems more and more Americans cannot stomach "organized religion," but they cannot let go of superstition altogether. As long as the new deism looks nothing like the old theism, then they won't be building concentration camps for sinners, Jews, homophiles, Gypsies, and other "undesirables." I guess those new cathedrals erected to the greater glory of almighty god will store airplanes.

Religion is big business, and hugely profitable, and many preachers are millionaires, selling the Prosperity Gospel right out from under Jesus. Today, the "mainstream" churches, synagogues, and mosques are more "new age" than Abrahamic Myth, but, today, they avoid bringing out crystals, Rolfing their members to health, praying to one's inner vagina to sprout the eternal feminine, and communing with witches and wizards.

The "Big Easy" Anything Goes: Seance at Noon

I guess Fr. Matthew Fox, the defrocked Catholic priest turned Episcopalian, no longer holds his rave masses by communing via Ecstasy. Damn, that was great stuff. Music a bit bitchy and punk. But E* stands for Episcopal Ecstasy. Check out an East Bay venue near you (e.g., College of Holy Names that rocks around the altar like Saint Gregory's Episcopal African Church). Disco was never this much fun. Now, do you see why "no organized religion" is now the largest "denomination" in the United States? If only the Unitarian Universalists could legalize peyote and mescaline, we'd be higher than a kite for god.

Today, any concrete form of theism or "new ageism" is as passe as Moses, David, Jesus, and Paul. As the least educated of the industrial Western nations, it is encouraging the United States is finally getting "in touch" with its Inner Age of Enlightenment.

REFERENCES & RESOURCES:

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Copenhagen, has two wonderful books to consider your call by: The Mythic Past: Biblical Archeology and the Myth of Israel (Basic Books, 1999) and The Messiah Myth: The Near-Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (Basic Books, 2005). Hermeneutic readers will enjoy any of Raymond Brown's excellent tomes: The Birth of the Messiah and the two-volume The Death of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1993). While different in approach and methodology, both scholars show how the fictions were crafted and from whence they originated. Let's just say the rabbis weren't any smarter then than today. That the New Testament Gospel Narratives were written by rabbis that made up the narratives is Brown's genius, showing how the Gospel plagiarizes the Hebrew scriptures, which are no less fictional.

"You Butchered Me for Nothing?"

Chest Fetish Gone Wild?

A reader asks if your Gap Species has a "nipple fetish?" (I guess yesterday's photos have an overt chest and nipple presentation.)

Actually, he does. It may strike some people as strange, but my nipples are more sensitive than the "other" members of my body, and anyone that "tickles my fancy" knows to go directly for the chest. This sensation, girls and boys, is far more common than most people realize (homophiles and heterophiles listen up).


Any man that cannot perform three functions simultaneously: (1) nipple play, (2) deep throat, and (3) . . . . does not score first base with me. Any man that gets two-out-of-three usually hits a home run with all the bases loaded. Any man I have to "show" how to act is history before the second inning.

It was one of the reasons Beloved and I stayed ever ready these many years -- he knows my erogenous zones (and I his). If you watch porn, you might think men were inept lovers, (some horrible fuckers), but I think porn simply focuses on one act at a time -- because that is how pornographers think -- as if men are stupid and inept. Put those idle hands to work -- and not like you're turning on a faucet, but gently, lightly, ever so sensually.

Health Reform Antics -- The Act Changes

Did you watch the Smoke and Mirrors last week, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in trouble in his home state, indiscreetly included a "public option" in the health insurance reform acts of 2009 -- knowing full well it can never pass with TEN Democratic senators opposed to it? He just inserted it without consent -- an act we liken to rape.

This dog-and-pony show magically "disappears" to the indiscriminating that read the headlines only -- those Democrats that believe Pelosi and Reid really support the public option. By fiat, the dynamic duo produced a bill that cannot muster sufficient Democrats -- but Republicans' sandbagging it in "reconciliation" will get the blame. The only problem with that tall bull tale is that Republicans are not part of the equation: Democrats are sandbagging the bill. It does not matter WHAT perks the dynamic duo add or remove -- it is the PLAN itself they despise.

This "conjoint" proposal by Pelosi-Reid is going nowhere, except for recycle as toilet paper. The House's 1,900 page bill is so labyrinthine it would require a super-bureaucracy to interpret, cost about $800 billion over ten years, and yet, miracle of miracles, save the federal government money (you believe in the tooth fairy too, huh?). Apparently the Price-Waterhouse accountants work for the Congressional Budget Office, after their Enron gig.

I so rarely agree with Michael Moore, that when I do, I celebrate the occasion, and invite you to join us. Write Congress and tell them to SCRAP the entire faux insurancegate of this Pelosi--Reid melodrama. We need REAL reform -- admittedly in stages -- and the ONLY plan that meets all the tests is the Wyden-Bennett bipartisan Healthy Americans Act. I would include "cooperatives" that "triggers" a national public option if the cooperatives fail to check-and-balance the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. But President Obama has already capitulated to Big Pharma -- just like G.W.B. And Pelosi, Reid, and Baccus already capitaluted to Big Insurance. None capitulated to the citizen.

That's the kind of "change" that makes no difference.