One of HM King Farouk's Faberge eggs 1906 Swan Egg

One of HM King Farouk's Faberge eggs 1906 Swan Egg
Originally uploaded by Magda Malek

Interesting little piece of history and jewelry. King Farouk was an avid collector and what better piece of beauty than a Feberge egg to acquire! The story about his rise to fame as a goldsmith and jeweler is that Czar Nicholas wanted to give out Easter presents, but small ones with captivating beauty (also less expensive). When the Czarina Alexandra opened the box and saw a plain white egg surrounded by a thin gold band - definitely not very impressive, but when she opened the egg she found that it had a golden yolk. When she opened the yolk, it revealed a golden hen with a ruby in its beak! She was so delighted that she asked to be given a "surprise" egg every Easter! Relatives were also given extravagant egg treasures, sometimes with surprises, sometimes with such beauty on the outside that the egg was exquisite!

Faberge Easter Egg for the Czar's mother.

IDAHO - Not a State - But A Frame of Mind

Today is
International Day Against Homophobia
(IDAHO)

I can't decide if this is a difficult post or an easy one. I'm sitting here at my laptop in my room literally surrounded by my life: a 16' wall of books and memorabilia, my black cat, Katie Scarlett looking at me with that yes-I-love-you-now-feed-me look, sliding glass doors leading to two decks and what I call my "faerie portal" - a narrowing path of flowers ending in a tiny oval mirror surrounded by rhinstone "stars". I've been HIV+ for almost 30 years (disabling AIDS for 7). I'm comfortable - yes, and lucky.

But many gay people are not so lucky. One may even be killed tonight. What can I do to stop it? Nothing except rant. Can anything be done to stop it? Of course, but it sometimes takes an entire nation to stop one murder.

It is unfortunate that right-wing Christians will not make the attempt to stop a murder if it involves someone gay. Many Christians have defined their religion by what they have not done: they did not speak out against the Holocaust; they did not (immediately - or even for the first ten years of the epidemic) help AIDS victims; they do not do anything to stop homophobia. In matters of crisis, many Christians are inert with fear (some call it praying). Being defined by what one does not do is rather shameful - sinful, in fact. And that yearly reminder from the pulpit that we should "love the sinner but hate the sin" is ludicrous, especially when the person who least believes it is behind the pulpit.

Of course, every society has its professional haters: the latest one to come on the scene is Rod Parsley. Not only does he hate homosexuals, but he hates a whole religious nation: Islam. (Hey, that "America was created to destroy Islam" is ridiculous - and it's given stand-up comedians a lot of great material). He gets a great deal of money and exposure in telling people who to hate and how to hate. In a way, it would be more fitting to be George Bush's spiritual mentor than John McCain's. There would have been more irony in Bush's "appeasement" speech.

I recently saw a list of signs that our country may be going fascist. Let's go beyond homophobia and see just how much of a chance we have of goosestepping to Onward Christian Soldier:
(I've emphasized some that seem more pertinent to us, although all of them apply to some degree)

Early Warning Signs of Fascism:

Powerful and continuing Nationalism
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Disdain for Human Rights Supremacy of the Military
Rampant Sexism
Controlled Mass Media
Religion and Government Intertwined
Corporate Power is Protected
Labor Power is Suppressed
Disdain for Intellectuals and The Arts
Obsession With Crime and Punishment
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fraudulent Elections

Homophobia is a symptom of something more sinister (if that's possible): Christo-Fascism. And the closest we can come in description of Christo-Fascism is today's Reconstructionist movement. When you see a Rod Parsley, a John Hagee or even a Pat Robertson, pose one question: could he possibly be a Reconstructionist? I'm not trying to advocate being judgemental or suspicious. Look at the preacher's own background and what he has espoused. How far is he or she from the Reconstructionist philosophy of an entire Christian world governed by Biblical law?

When it comes to battling homophobia, it's just part of one BIG culture war. And a long war if we let the Parsleys and the Hagees go on their merry way of hatred.

Here are some images (some funny, some not) from the trenches:

Separated at Birth? - Fred gets Punk'd - Start 'em young - Protected Hate Speech

Truer than you think! A New National Emblem?

Of all places - in the bathroom of a major bookstore!

Ignorance Cuts Both Ways
Originally uploaded by namroff

That's O.K. 'cause I have a t-shirt that says:
So many right-wing Christians
So few lions

Religion created homophobia

Religion created homophobia
Originally uploaded by taryneast

Yes it did.

Religion also created "lepers" "heathens" "pagans" Today's religious oraganizations (not all but most) desperately need someone or something to hate. The most hateful of intolerances is religious intolerance. While they have enough hatred amongst themselves, it's not enough for them. How would you be treated by a "Christian" if you were a gay Muslim with AIDS?

Watch this blog for a seering post on the topic of homophobia - within several hours!

Evidently the Bible Doesn't Teach Anyone The Difference Between Diplomacy and Appeasement

He was not a diplomat ...* Neither is he ...* Nor is he...*

And CERTAINLY not he!

If God Didn't Bother With Diplomacy
Why Should We?

Yesterday, George Bush delivered a speech at the Knesset in Jerusalem and implied that the offer of diplomacy by Barack Obama was tantamount to appeasement - the same appeasement that allowed Nazi Germany to grow in strength before the Second World War.

For George Bush's sake, let's take a more "spiritual" look at "appeasement":

Because the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin (Heb 10:4), the wrath of God was never appeased in the Old Testament - thus, God passed over the sins committed in the Old Testament until Christ. (http://bible.geek.nz).

So Christ was the only real appeasement to God and before Christ a lot of the animal sacrifices requested by God didn't really count for much. This is probably Bible conundrum #45,652: why would God request sacrifices that didn't please (appease) Him? And how could man bargain or be diplomatic with a god who couldn't be appeased? Of course, throughout the Bible, man does try to be diplomatic with God "You cannot bargain with God!" say the Fundamentalists, but isn't that exactly what Abraham did to save Lot, or did they skip over that part in Sunday School? More precisely, people negotiated with God throughout the Bible. People tried to be, in a sense, diplomatic with God.

So God is the only entity that can be appeased, we get it. But is appeasement the same as diplomacy? Appeasement is simply giving (in) while diplomacy is giving and taking. Probably history's greatest act of "appeasement" was committed by Sir Neville Chamberlain. It is, in fact, Chamberlain's actions that Bush alluded to (though he didn't know it - his speechwriter obviously did).

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he said.

Chamberlain (before the agreement to hand over to Germany Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland):

"How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul."

Chamberlain's reasoning on this point was as faulty as Bush's: "...people of whom we know nothing." To Chamberlain, appeasement to "people of whom we know nothing" was diplomacy. Howevever, true diplomacy is based on knowing as much as possible about every party involved. Chamberlain probably knew that, but he tried to present his actions as diplomatic - not caring if those actions hurt anyone else outside of Great Britain. Granted, Bush went into war not knowing anything about Iraq, Iran, Islam or anything relating to the Middle East. His actions for seven years have been anything but diplomatic. Of course, his "legacy" now demands that he act like a diplomat, but his actions are worse than transparent, their negligible, and quite possibly damaging.

His rhetoric is certainly getting worse: he's saying to Islamists all over the world: "You're beyond reasoning with (diplomacy). You're evil. If you don't do exactly as we want you to, we'll destroy you. Our holy men have said that our country was formed to destroy you, and we will."

For a sample of overtly anti-Islamic rhetoric go to the right-wing blog, Facta Non Verba here
This is the kind of "reasoning" Bush ascribes to.

Forms of diplomacy change over the years. When Marie Antoinette married the future Louis XVI, that was considered diplomacy. Back then, diplomacy was considered an art form.

It still is.

George Bush doesn't know that.

*The three men featured (left to right) are: Neville Chamberlain, "Pastor" John Hagee and ...take a guess (hint: rhymes with "arsley")

Aping Churchill

Aping Churchill
Originally uploaded by robbroccoli

I just ran across this and it seemed so apt to the post. Again, Bush and diplomacy have never even met. The pitiful thing is that he might actually start to believe his own rhetoric. What's the old saying about snake oil salesmen?

Churchill was a statesman. Bush is a politician. Who would you rather have representing your country?

Golf?!! What Will Bush Give Up Next? He Already's Given Up His Sanity!

How About Giving Up The Presidency?

Admittedly, this is an old article, but it speaks volumes on how our fearless leader thinks (or tries to)

Stars & Stripes: Bush Hasn't Attended any Iraq Soldier's Funeral

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:41:42 AM EST

Over the past 39 1/2 months, more than 2,500 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. Yet during this entire time -- well more than three years -- George W. Bush has not attended a single funeral for a soldier who perished during the Iraq conflict. Not one. Stars & Stripes' Jeff Schogol has the story (via Editor & Publisher).

President Bush has met hundreds of families of fallen soldiers, but he has yet to attend a servicemember's funeral, he said Tuesday.

"Because which funeral do you go to? In my judgment, I think if I go to one I should go to all. How do you honor one person but not another?" he said.

The appropriate way to express his appreciation to the family members of fallen troops is to meet with them in private, he said.

So...

Here's a President who has said he met hundreds of soldiers' families, gave up golf in "solidarity" and has yet to go an serviceman's funeral because he thought it might not seem fair to other soldier's families.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution in this country.

Here's a President who did or didn't know if he collaborated in the cover-up about Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution in this country.

Here's a President who gave an impromptu neck-rub to the Chancellor of Germany at a formal conference.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution in this country.

Here's a President who told Pat Robertson there would be no casualties resulting from the War in Iraq.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution in this country.

Over 212 years, 42 presidents issued signing statements objecting to a grand total of 600 provisions of new laws. George W. Bush has done that more than 800 times in just over five and a half years in office.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution
in this country.

George Bush's war broke laws, his administration broke laws, but Bush denies any wrongdoing. His state of denial is so obvious, he seems to be the only one not to notice it.

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution
in this country.

While arguing against stem-cell research, George Bush told everyone we should "err on the side of life." This from someone who holds the nation's record for most executions carried out (158 during his time as governor of Texas).

Today is the 191st anniversary of the first mental institution in this country.

This wonderful parody of "Crazy" was put together by Zeeeemonga - if it is censored in any way, go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/zeeeemoga

Of course, when he's out of office, Bush will be handing out these
souvenir golf tees when he's out back again on the course.