152 Days: The War Against Boredom - Can Obama and McCain Keep the Circus Running?

Little Donkeys Pulling a Warrior (in spite of themselves) and... Old Photo Old Elephants Old Politics

The Environment. Racism. Iraq. Faulty Economy....Politics
Now THAT'S Entertainment!

Obama-McCain, McCain-Obama - incessantly. You will be hearing about them and their running mates for a long time. For 152 days, in fact. You thought that the juggle-the-crazy-minister acts were fun. If neither of them come up with more entertainment, we will all be bored to death by platitudes. Of course, their running mates will take center stage for a while with biographies and vicious profiles that no one could endure - unless they're in a coma.

And they will attack each other incessantly, although they will say that the other is playing "dirty politics" (forgetting that all politics is dirty). They will both come to "low blows" and "cheap shots". They will "swift boat" each other and their mates will be compared to Jackie Kennedy or Eleanor Roosevelt.

Why? First of all, remember that America has made a religion out of entertainment (and an entertainment out of religion). Take away our gas-guzzling SUVs, our MacDonald's, our Walmarts, but don't even think of messing with our God-given right to entertainment. The other reason for such frenzied hoopla: like some Thanksgiving dinner at your mother's house, there are just too many things to serve up: changes in politics, in administration, in health care, in foreign policy and, yes, even in "morals". And each candidate has to stuff them into a turkey the size of a hippo.

Don't worry, we won't explode; we'll want to see what they both say about obesity in this country.

And they'll juggle: the failings of Medicare, the bankruptcy crisis, revamping FEMA, the cost of prescription medications, recalling troops from Iraq, flag-pins, prayer in schools, evolution vs intelligent design, ethanol.

They'll both have to spruce up old political lions and war horses to support them. Old grade school teachers will be interviewed, even scrutinized. They will need to polish old records or hide them or put a different slant to them. Their aides will dodge and weave and balance questions on their noses with perspiration running down their cheeks - if they slip, they're canned. Specialists in scooping up manure will be called upon.


The candidates will have to shine and keep their lights on day and night. Every night will be a night in the dazzling center ring (or at least look like Las Vegas). Their capacity for the spotlight will seem infinite. They will have to fend off flame-throwers - many of Bush's old policies - and at the same time become flaming sword swallowers: making the indigestible seem, well, digestible (probably Iraq). They will need to carry torches for whatever cause their audiences espouse.

They may even have to shock.

Remember when Elvis Presley shocked and entertained us just by swiveling his hips? Hell, that was the kind of crowd pleaser any politician would pay dearly for.

And what they must never do during the campaign: never show nervousness (remember the trickle of sweat down Nixon's nose compared to Kennedy's assurance?) and never, ever become tedious or boring. Boring = political death. Both Adlai Stephenson and Al Gore could tell you that.

Unfortunately, the two images the campaigners may not be able to project: Majesty...or cuteness. Such is the Circus of presidential campaigns.

Better brew up a lot of strong coffee, folks, this long, long circus show is about to begin.

Robert Kennedy is shot dead

Robert Kennedy is shot dead
Originally uploaded by Doc Kazi

40 years ago, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. Amidst the sturm und drang of the campaigns, his memory seems buried. How many people will comment on it? Will the media mention it? His younger brother, Ted Kennedy, is now ill. Will there be any correlation?

Of course, some groups of neocons would rather Camelot not be brought up any more than it has to be: I wonder which megachurches are hosting memorials? Where are they and what, pray tell, are their demographics? Could be a small research project for someone.

Puke worthy Los Angeles Smog

Puke worthy Los Angeles Smog
Originally uploaded by perfectlymadebirds

You would think that the smog would let up for International Environment Day, but it hasn't. Quote the photographer, perfectlymadebirds:

A severe smog warning issued for people to stay indoors. You could smell and taste it. The sulfur which gives the color you see smells like a combination of vomit and decaying feces which you can also taste. The particulates leave a residue on everything. Visibility was less than a mile and the sun was almost red and very dim. Los Angles is notorious for having the worst smog in the world.

Will Ann Coulter (geist) Celebrate Today? Will Joyce Meyer?

Two Women at the Opposite Ends of the 19th Amendment

Today, Hillary Clinton may not be celebrating, but she still might want to thank people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Emmeline Pankhurst for how far she has come. The 19th Amendment was passed by Congress on this day in 1919. It took almost 90 years for women to become even marginally equal. Clinton should be extremely proud that she was able to muscle her way through what was once the exclusively masculine privilege of politics and make women everywhere realize that they can achieve whatever they want to achieve. Perhaps it's the liberal in me, but I'm proud too.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, however, doesn't see things in quite the same light:

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

But she said this about Hillary Clinton:

From Wikipedia:

On the January 31, 2008 broadcast of Hannity and Colmes, Coulter claimed that, if McCain won the Republican nomination for president, she would support and campaign for Hillary Clinton, claiming that "[Clinton] is more conservative than McCain."

She broke her promise.

In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, as well as in personal appearances, Coulter characterized the theory of evolution as "bogus science", and contrasting her beliefs to what she called the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death."

To hear Ann Coulter expound on religion is not very enlightening, either, since she carries the sexism she yearns for straight from the Garden of Eden: men are evil and women are just stupid pawns.

Contrast her to a woman of religion, televangelist Joyce Meyer: Meyer rejoices that she is a woman and makes no bones about the fact that she loves money.

"God does not need our money. The giving thing is not for Him, it's for us," Meyer told a Detroit audience in September. "I should not have to work to try to support myself."

To see the entire Joyce Meyer Family Compound click here.

Wikipedia:

Critics question the legitimacy of Meyer's theological education. According to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Meyer earned her doctorate degree from Life Christian University in Tampa, Florida. LCU is not accredited by a governmental agency recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education. Meyers does however hold an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity from an accredited institution, Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Sorry, Joyce, but all bible thumper colleges look alike to me. Besides, it was an Honorary doctorate. How did you really get it? O.K., that's not nice. It's your birthday today, and I shouldn't be mean to the birthday girl.

Well, it does seem that these two women in the limelight have a large distance between them: they're both rich and famous, but one thinks women should not even have the right to vote, while the other glories in being a woman of God. One would stab Susan B. Anthony in the back, while the other would welcome her at the door with a glass of champagne.

Go figure.

martha stewart goes to jail

martha stewart goes to jail
Originally uploaded by ◦◦►sun☼shiny☺love♥rainbows◄◦◦

Today was the day when Martha Stewart landed in the clink. People wondered if her empire would survive. Oddly enough, it did, primarily because they realized that while she was serving time, some Enron executives were still free. The inside trading of $50,000 worth of stocks was really no big deal! How much was GWB's "great friend" Ken Lay raking in at the time?

Change, Mistakes and the Ultimate Risk: Obama and the Vatican

The "PJXXIII Service Project" - High School kids helping the needy

One is not blameable for mistakes, we all make them.
A mistake is not a crime, it is only a miscarriage of judgement. - Mark Twain

From WashingtonPost.com:

"Senator Obama's family is proud of the service of his grandfather and uncles in World War II - especially the fact that his great uncle was a part of liberating one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald. Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton this afternoon in a statement, which also clarified that the great-uncle "Served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945."

But for conservative bloggers, Obama has finally gone beyond the pale. "Sickening," huffs Red State. "Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory," reports PowerLine. "The Young Gaffer Sees Dead People," chortles Hot Air.

From Obama's website: "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Maybe a change in Washington would be a president who admits mistakes. "The most gaffe-prone politician in memory" - that's a severe case of ADD. Bush's gaffes are legion - and filled with dire consequences. Remember the "yellow cake" gaffe? It helped send us to war. Remember, when five solid weeks after the exposure of Abu Ghraib, Bush could not pronounce it? Bush never admitted mistakes. Oh, wait, he did admit that "Mission Accomplished" was a mistake, sort of...three years after it had taken place. Bush not only makes mistakes he is a mistake.

And by admitting his mistakes, Obama at least proves that he's listening to what is being said about him. The test of a true dimwit is that when called a dimwit, he doesn't respond - at all. For eight years, Bush never even attempted to prove that he wasn't what many people thought he was. He made a gaffe when he said he didn't read the newspapers. When people joked about that, it took his wife to defend him.

Mistakes and change. Along with them come a great risk.

Angelo Rancalli was a risk-taker, even in his advanced age. He was elected pope because of his age: cardinals thought his age would make him an interim pope. They didn't expect him to call an ecumenical council. They were frightened when Vatican II threatened to change things.

“I see you. I feel. I have looked into your eyes with my eyes. I have put my heart near your heart.” John XXIII called for change because he actually listened to his flock.

Il Papa Buono - The Good Father

Obama calls for change and all the conservatives are frightened. They not only have a history of hating change, with the religio-political environment of today, they hope to regress back to a time that never was and to "values" that restrict freedoms. Obama has talked of a Washington not fettered to lobbyists. Conservatives love lobbyists. Lobbyists ARE Washington. Special interests ARE Washington. Corporate interests ARE America!

What risk is Obama taking by tauting change? The ultimate one? Let's hope not, but people who don't want change can be as desperate as people who want it. Pope John XXIII didn't live long enough to encounter the results of his risk. Neither did John Paul I. After his election as pope, rumors flew about in the Vatican that even greater changes would be made, in staff as well as in policy and liturgy. The sedevacantists* had begun to form. The pope was found dead in his bed only 33 days after his election. He was a relatively young sixty-five. The cause of death has never truly been established.

Shocking? Only by today's standards. During the two millennium of popes, seventeen were murdered or allegedly murdered. The ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries were particularly dangerous times to be a pope. John Paul's predecessor, John VIII, was allegedly poisoned and clubbed to death. John XII was murdered by a jealous husband.

Barack Obama certainly knows the risks he's taking in his bid for change as well as the presidency. Many conservatives would secretly rejoice if he were erased by a white supremicist group.

And as for the "values voters", well, let's put it this way: do you think Pastor Rod Parsley would lead a memorial service for Obama?

Just a thought.

"Hey, his middle name IS Hussein!

Some people's idea of "change"

"Take THIS for a change!"

*Sedevacantism is a theological position embraced by a minority of Traditionalist Catholics which holds that the Papal See has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 (or, in some cases, the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963). Sedevacantists believe that Paul VI (1963–1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978–2005) and Benedict XVI (2005-) have been neither true Catholics nor true popes, but rather notorious heretics, by dint of having allegedly espoused Modernism. As we stated in an earlier post, actor and director Mel Gibson is an avowed sedevacantist who has built a sedevacantist church on his estate in Malibu.

The Little Eichmanns On Trial: Support of the Hagees and Parsleys of the Christian Right

Is it a church - or a Wallmart?

How Can People Still Support the Christofascists?
(e.g., Hagee, Parsley, Hinn, Copeland, etc.)

Today is the 46th anniversary of the execution of Adolf Eichmann. There were different theories about Eichmann, one being that he was an un-influential follower, a cog in the wheels of Hitler's Third Reich. He was one of the "average" Germans who didn't really know what was going on or the worldview of his superiors. Indeed, there were a great many Germans who did not know about death camps like Auschwitz or about the experiments of Josef Mengele.

A very controversial essay by Ward Churchill ignited a firestorm when he described the workers in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns":

In "Some People Push Back," [Ward] Churchill argued that effects of decade-long economic sanctions on Iraqis, together with the Middle East policies of President Lyndon Johnson, and the history of Crusades against the Islamic world, had contributed to a climate in which 9/11 was what he called a "natural and inevitable response."

In an allusion to Hannah Arendt's depiction of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann as an ordinary person promoting the activity of an evil system, Churchill referred to the "technocrats" working at the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns."

Churchill compared the American people to the "good Germans" of Nazi Germany, claiming that the vast majority of Americans had ignored the civilian suffering caused by the sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s, which he characterized as a policy of genocide.

The essay was later expanded into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which won Honorable Mention for the Gustavus Myers Human Rights Award in 2004.

O.K., this next paragraph falls into the category of "Is Vojir THAT anti-Christian? But please hear me out.

So, just who are today's "little Eichmanns"? I'm going out on a limb here by guessing that they are the congregations and viewers of Christofascists like Copeland, Hagee, Parsley, Hinn, etc. They are the ones who are the blind followers of intense hatred. Do they themselves fall into any subcategories? By all means: 1. the desperate; 2. the poor and (hence) uneducated; 3. the "spiritually lazy"; 4. the mentally vulnerable; 5. the traditional "followers"; 6. the gullible; 7. the just plain stupid. Let's go one by one:

1. The desperate. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Certain avenues of religion are really desperate measures. Some people will grasp at anything to make their life more meaningful or divorce themselves from pain and sorrow. If they find any form of comfort in it, they cling to it for dear life.

2. The poor and/or uneducated. Today's "prosperity theology" is like gathering together with a lot of people holding lottery or horse racing tickets. It's also free entertainment (so they think). Just as centuries ago, when European peasants were dazzled by the rituals and splendor of the church (and kept in ignorance - purposely), today's worshippers like the razzle-dazzle of a "man of God" screaming from the pulpit. They take some comfort in show of choir robes and music, even Christian Rock (with accompanying fog machines and lights shows, of course).

3. The Spiritually Lazy. How many people have read another religious book other than the Bible? How many people today can say they know the tenets of Buddhism or Hinduism by authors/experts in those fields? How many people can actually recite the Ten Commandments in order without any help? These people aren't stupid, but they don't want to be bothered about thinking of something so complex as spirituality. They want someone someone of authority to tell them what to think, what to feel, what to say, what to do.

4. The mentally vulnerable. This includes all those elderly in nursing homes who give money to televangelists. Some people really do think that they might be healed if they just touch the screen while their favorite "prophet" is on.

5. The "traditional" followers. It's a group psychology game. Some people really need to be part of a group - any group. The faith-group of their parents and relatives is usually the most comfortable... and convenient. I believe these people are the majority of the Hagee-Parsley viewers and congregations. It's just not worth it to explore any other spiritual options (hence, they could also fall into the "lazy" group as well)

6. The gullible. They may be part of several other groups, but they are also swayed by things like titles. Having an "Rev.", "Fr." or "Dr." in front of one's name insures that someone somewhere will believe him/her. How many people actually check (outside) biographies and institutional histories. Parsley's background is horrendous. Hagee's degrees could have been gotten out of a box of Crackerjack. James Dobson's honorary degrees (19) could have cost him several endowments or (cheaper) some well-placed government positions.

7. The just plain stupid. These are the people who should know better. They know that scholars of the Bible and Theology are out there and they know that they can access their works. They know that they have access to different ideologies. However, they don't care. Yes, this might include them in the "lazy" category as well, but to them, one ideology looks as good as another. One other trait of the just plain stupid: they feel an irrational urge to hate something or someone. When their preacher talks about hating the devil, they nod their heads. And they nod their heads when he talks about hating other people as well. This is stupid because it accomplishes nothing but antipathy - which is counter to human survival.

Looking inside many churches today, we can see all of these kinds of "believers":

It is hard to describe a “worship service” led by pastor and television evangelist Rod Parsley. Whether viewing at home by way of his popular daily television broadcast, Breakthrough, or as part of his 12,000-member congregation, his services could, perhaps, be described as a hybrid of pep rally, boxing match and professional wrestling with smatterings of Bible verses and hyped-up claims that take people over the edge of hysteria. It is primal scream set to spiritual aerobics. Parsley is the ultimate cheerleader and professional boxer combined. He deftly and quickly moves people into altered states of unreality. There is no question that he can be a compelling and convincing speaker. Neither does he have difficulty or qualms about hosting the worst of Word-Faith teachers and promoting their agendas. (G. Richard Fisher, Rod Parsley: the Raging Prophet)

So there you have them: the "little Eichmanns" who follow blindly. The Hinns and Parsleys already have their souls. But they want to see just how much loyalty and money they can wring out of them.

O.K., I have certainly run on! The sheer length of this post probably scared off more people than the ones who plowed through it, that's for sure. But if you have - thanks.

A Mega Church behind the scenes

Rod Parsley's "Church"