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"

The Marilyn We Knew

Vs. the Marilyn We Didn't Know

Marilyn Monroe: beautiful and vulnerable. That's how people saw her. But what was she really like? Did anyone really figure her out completely? Was devoted DiMaggio privy to her innermost feelings? Was Arthur Miller? There was depth, but it was tortured by something else. Affairs with Kennedy's? Who knows? Did she hate fame? Did she come to hate her image? Was it the public who really killed her?

All those questions of a 36-year-old movie star who was more famous than anyone in the world. She would have been 82 today. She's left us craving for the answers to those questions - forever.

When You Care Enough To Be the Most Insidious

Serious Illness - Weight Loss Encouragement - Menopause - Divorce - Miscarriage - New Dog
There's a Norman Vincent Peale Sentiment for Every One of them!

Goddam You Hallmark Cards!!
(and you think today's candidates have a hard time with profiteering preachers!)

For sheer nuggets of "wisdom", comfort and uplifting spirit, there's nothing like a Norman Vincent Peale-inspired Hallmark card.

Of course, a lot of fake-optimist-psychology goes along with it. As well as a good dose of right-wing political thinking.

O.K., who was the preeminent preacher who got too close to politics in the 1950s? It was that uplifting but sappy sentimentalist, Dr. Norman Vincent Peale. What is today's treacle was yesterday's paper sermon (with a background of hands in prayer or pink roses). Norman Vincent Peale prose was, in effect, everywhere. The author of The Power of Positive Thinking, Peale and his franchise reached out to all points of the globe. It was, however, when Peale made his voice heard in the political realm that he proved just how insidious his prose really was. The beliefs behind the benign-looking minister were on the par with Parsley and Hagee - at least for his time:

Regarding Peale's intrusion into Republican politics, Stevenson said in this transcript of a speech given in San Francisco: "Richard Nixon has tried to step aside in favor of Norman Vincent Peale (APPLAUSE, LAUGHTER)... We can only surmise that Mr. Nixon has been reading 'The Power of Positive Thinking.' (APPLAUSE). America was not built by wishful thinking. It was built by realists, and it will not be saved by guess work and self-deception. It will only saved by hard work and facing the facts." (Pacifiradioarchives.org/projects/transcripts/pdf/adlai_jfk.pdf - M).
Peale is also best remembered in politics by the famous Adlai Stevenson quote: "I find Paul appealing and Peale appalling." The origin of the quote can be traced to the 1952 election, when Stevenson was informed by a reporter that Peale had been attacking him as unfit for the presidency because he was divorced.
And Peale was totally against Kennedy because he was Catholic:

"Faced with the election of a Catholic," Peale declared, "our culture is at stake. (The Religious Issue: Hot and Getting Hotter. Newsweek. Sept 19, 1960.) In a written manifesto Peale and his group also declared JFK would serve the interests of the Catholic church before the interests of the United States ...and that the election of a Catholic might even end free speech in America. (National Review. Jan. 28, 1961). Protestant theologian Reinhold Neibuhr responded "Dr. Peale and his associates... show blind prejudice." (Take that John Hagee!)

As far as "positive thinking" was concerned, psychologists and psychiatrists all over the country cried out at how truly harmful Peale's philosophy truly was:


Peale's views are critically reviewed in a 1955 article by psychiatrist R. C. Murphy, published in The Nation, titled "Think Right: Reverend Peale's Panacea." "With saccharine terrorism, Mr. Peale refuses to allow his followers to hear, speak or see any evil. For him real human suffering does not exist; there is no such thing as murderous rage, suicidal despair, cruelty, lust, greed, mass poverty, or illiteracy. All these things he would dismiss as trivial mental processes which will evaporate if thoughts are simply turned into more cheerful channels....The belief in pure evil, an area of experience beyond the possibility of help or redemption, is automatically a summons to action: 'evil' means 'that which must be attacked . . .' Between races for instance, this belief leads to prejudice. In child-rearing it drives parents into trying obliterate rather than trying to nurture one or another area of the child's emerging personality . . . In international relationships it leads to war. As soon as a religious as a religious authority endorses our capacity for hatred, either by refusing to recognize unpleasantness in the style of Mr Peale or in the more classical style of setting up a nice comfortable Satan to hate, it lulls our struggles for growth to a standstill . . . Thus Mr Peale's book is not only inadequate for our needs but even undertakes to drown out the fragile inner voice which is the spur to inner growth." Peale was also a Scottish Rite Freemason (33°)

"As soon as a religious authority endorses our capacity for hatred..." I've talked about Christofascists before. Could there be a more apt description of our religious authorities today?
And in regards to politics, knowing what we know now about George Bush's ways of thinking (sorry), wouldn't you say that Bush had taken as much political advice from Peal as from Robertson, Falwell and, ah, Haggard?

A good look at the Power of Positive Thinking: no need to get out the magnifying glass for this one, I'll tell you: May 31 marks the anniversary of the launching of the "unsinkable" ...Titanic.

Spuds McKenzie

Spuds
Originally uploaded by intothefuzz

This guy had it all: fame, fortune (mucho dog biscuits!) and girls! Spuds McKenzie was one pooch who made advertising (or looking at advertising) fun. Sure, it was a beer, but what better way to say that the product is for a real "party animal"? This guy wasn't close to cutsie, bull terriers are very strange looking dogs, what with a huge head, short bowed legs and small hind quarters - they look like some science experiment gone wrong. None of their parts seem to fit. But if they're put down, you wouldn't know it, because they are the sweetest breed of dog. Great with kids and adults!
Thanks Spuds. This Spuds' for you!

With Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, Who Needs Joan of Arc?

Perhaps We Do

Today, in the year 1431, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. She was 19 years old. Her last words were "Bishop, I die through you." Pretty enigmatic for an uneducated peasant French girl.

In fact, the French peasant was an enigma: she said she heard the voices of St. Michael (archangel), St. Catherine and St. Margaret since she was twelve years of age. She convinced the heir of France to send her into battle with troops. She overcame the prejudice of war-hardened generals and became what some people say was the most ingenious (and victorious) war hero of her time. She saw her king crowned at Rheims, then was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, found guilt of heresy and burned at the stake.

Joan fought for a free France. In America, who's fighting for our freedoms?

Politicians? Even the inspiring rhetoric of Barack Obama doesn't convince people that he can fight as well as he should. Hillary? McCain? They all say that God is on their side. So do organizations like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America. Ditto "ecclesiastics" like Parsley, Hagee, Wright, Robertson, Copeland. They certainly wouldn't try a current-day Joan of Arc, would they? Guess again: Joan's "heresy" was based on the fact that she wore men's clothes (a trumped up charge nonetheless). Feminism! Horrors!!

Again, who do we have to fight for our freedoms. Who do we have to fight for our lives? Read this bit about hate crimes:

The Triangle Foundation said Tuesday that the number of violent crimes against Michiganders because of their sexual orientation that was reported to the Detroit-based group jumped 133%

There were 226 reported incidents during 2007 involving violence or violent threats against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered people, according to the report, which was released in conjunction with the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. By comparison, the foundation said, there were 97 reported incidents in 2006.

The national statistics are almost as bad. And it's not just gay rights that these people won't defend, but human rights. Who will wage war against the people who do not want us to have human rights? We've been forced into a serious culture war on our own soil, but who will fight for us?

We really need a Joan of Arc now. We need someone who has had powerful visions and can be just as inspiring. We need someone to command troops of people with dedication, fortitude and zeal, troops that will counter the prejudice and bigotry we see in numbers like the one in Michigan. We need someone to help us crown our individual human sovereignty. We need someone to lay siege to religious hatred. But who? Where do we find him/her? In politics? In church? On the street?

Maybe what we really need is for us all to become Joan of Arc.

We need you, me, us. Together.