Since the 4th. of July is a day for celebrating all things American, it only seems appropriate to post the following video. After all, expressing one's patriotism, like expressing one's love for a spouse, shouldn't be restricted on the basis of one's sexual preference. With that in mind...I'm happy to say on this Independence Day that I, too, am "totally gay for America". Now where the hell is my hot dog!?
Author Archive for Daniel DiRito
Controversial former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms has died at the age of 86. The following two quotes from Jesse Helms are not, on their surface, offensive...which is why they are so important.
I believe they provide insight into understanding the motivations behind all of the other reprehensible Jesse Helms quotations. You see, what you will find in the hearts of many who are outspoken is an unfortunate and misguided righteousness derived from their religious beliefs. He had every right to his beliefs. Unfortunately, some of his actions suggest he didn't support the same for others.
"I want our government to encourage and protect freedom as well as our traditions of faith and family."
"I have tried at every point to seek God's wisdom on the decisions I made, and I made it my business to speak up on behalf of the things God tells us are important to Him."
Note in the first quote how the protection of freedom is modified by the need to support traditions of faith and family. In other words, freedom should be available to those whose notions of faith and family comports with his own. The inference is that those who do not support his notion of faith and family may not deserve the same freedoms.
In the second quote, we see the certainty to enact the beliefs expressed in the first quote...and to do so unabashedly. Again, this Helms quote implies that God spoke to him...which entitled him to speak his mind...regardless of who it injured.
Further, I suspect he was convinced that it also granted him the authority to pass legislation to abridge the rights of those who didn't follow his interpretation of God's edicts or to block the passage of measures intended to grant equality to those he deemed inferior.
Helms' legacy is therefore a testament to intolerance and intransigence. Rather than see himself as a cog in the wheel of humanity, he saw himself as the pilot designated to steer the course of his fellow man. In the end, his legacy is steeped in arrogance and wholly lacking in the ability to demonstrate the very humanity he must have believed his actions were upholding.
And now the quotes that the history books will undoubtedly use when defining Jesse Helms.
"I've been portrayed as a caveman by some. That's not true. I'm a conservative progressive, and that means I think all men are equal, be they slants, beaners, or niggers."
- Jesse Helms, North Carolina Progressive, February 6, 1985, quoted from the Democratic Alliance."There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."
(States News Service, 5/17/88)"I've never heard once in this chamber anybody say to the homosexuals, 'stop what you're doing.' If they would stop what they're doing there would not be one additional case of AIDS in the United State."
"To rob the Negro of his reputation of thinking through a problem in his own fashion is about the same as trying to pretend that he doesn't have a natural instinct for rhythm and for singing and dancing."
"The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."
"Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches."
- 1995 radio broadcast"She's a damn lesbian. I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine."
- Explaining why he was opposing the appointment of a woman for a cabinet post."They should ask their parents if it would be all right for their son or daughter to marry a Negro."
- In response to Duke University students holding a vigil after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, 1968"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaged in unnatural acts."
- Arguing for reduced AIDS funding, The New York Times, 1985"These people are intellectually dishonest in just about everything they do or say,".... He added, "They start by pretending that it is just another form of love. It's sickening."
- From Variety
I doubt it's possible, but I've often wondered if the dead can look back and see their legacy. It would be nice to know that Jesse Helms would want to modify portions of the one he leaves.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
-Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
-James Madison (1819).
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
-James Madison
There is a surge of speculation in Denver that Barack Obama is considering the possibility of accepting the Democratic Party's nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High, the 76,000 seat home of the Denver Broncos rather than at the Pepsi Center. While there has been no official announcement or confirmation, there appears to be some validity to the rumor.
DENVER - Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is considering having the Democratic presidential nominee make his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High instead of the Pepsi Center, according to two people in a position to know details of the idea.
News of the potential relocation of the key event was first mentioned on the DemConWatch blog.
The two people told The Associated Press on Thursday that the plan is under consideration, but nothing has been confirmed yet.
NBC officials involved with convention coverage preparations tell 9NEWS that all indications are that the event will be held at Invesco. Those officials stressed that the move was not official until the DNC makes its final decision which is not expected until at least Monday.
Democratic National Convention Committee spokeswoman Natalie Wyeth did not offer confirmation.
"We have nothing to announce on that," Wyeth said.
Offered a chance to deny published reports of the move, Wyeth referred a reporter to her original statement.
Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson, who is based in Chicago, told 9NEWS no decisions have been made.
Denver 2008 Host Committee spokesman Chris Lopez declined comment when reached by 9NEWS.
"We'll wait for the announcement," Lopez said. "We don't have any comment on anything."
The tenor of the responses and the absence of definitive denials certainly suggest that the idea is receiving serious consideration. In recent years, the major networks have opted for less and less convention coverage. An event of this magnitude would clearly be a means to enliven what has become a rather stilted four days of canned propaganda. The cat may be out of the bag but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
While I despise the efforts of fundies to push their ideology, I have to give them credit for being so persistent. When the Bible speaks of a great pestilence, who new it could have its origin in the pews of the pious. Yes, I know that's a harsh assessment of those who believe they are simply pursuing their beliefs...but when those beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific evidence, they can be nothing less than a menacing manifestation.
The following video discusses the latest efforts to promote intelligent design as a scientific theory, which is frankly little more than deliberate deception...and that seems to me to be contradictory to fundamental Christian values. Unfortunately, many of these zealots believe the end justifies the means. I doubt their creator sees it that way. Then again, I'm of the opinion that they created god in their own likeness so I'm sure they can give him any of the attributes they need to justify their actions.
Funny how that works...when they need a compassionate god, they cite the good works and kindness of Jesus...and when they need fire and brimstone, they conveniently pull from the Old Testament. Perhaps that's the beauty of the Bible...it's malleable enough such that most actions can be justified.
Anyway, the latest effort is a two pronged attack. The first, as discussed in the video is to argue that the academic freedoms of instructors are impinged when they are prohibited from teaching "the controversy". In other words, since science, by its construct, is rarely offered as an absolute certainty, the creationists argue that the debate remains open as to the origins of the universe and should therefore be a legitimate component of science education. The following excerpt is an explanation of the issue from the religious perspective.
BATON ROUGE, La. (BP)--In a first for any state, Louisiana has adopted an academic freedom law giving teachers greater protection and freedom in teaching the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, something supporters of academic freedom in science call a significant step forward.
The law allows "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning." A statement on Jindal's website June 26 said he had signed it along with dozens of other bills.
Robert Crowther, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, cited two reasons the law is needed.
"First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it," Crowther wrote on Discovery's science and culture blog June 27.
"Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do," Crowther wrote.
Yes, proponents of these bills are careful to avoid any discussion of creationism or intelligent design as religious concepts in conflict with evolution. Instead, they want to open the door to teaching them by contending that evolution is just one theory. That brings us to the second component of their argument...which contends that the fundamental issue is a question of "strengths and weaknesses". The New York Times provides a good explanation in the following excerpts.
Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator."
The words are "strengths and weaknesses."
Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.
Already, legislators in a half-dozen states -- Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina -- have tried to require that classrooms be open to "views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory," according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.
" 'Strengths and weaknesses' are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists," said Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that promotes religious freedom.
The Discovery Institute has provided a template for legislators to file "academic freedom" bills, and they have been popping up with increasing frequency in statehouses across the country.
As you can see, there is no limit to the effort to undermine science and substitute Biblical doctrine. If these folks can't succeed in the courts, they try the legislature. If they can't succeed in the legislature, they seek to stack the school boards. Regardless, at each juncture, they refine their arguments to overcome the obstacles that have previously precluded the implementation of their absolutist ideology.
Sadly, those who are promoting a literal interpretation of the Bible are willing to exploit the uncertainty that comes from a commitment to scientific integrity...a commitment that is clearly the backbone upon which academia has been structured. Instead, those who believe they already have all the answers are not constrained by humility and frequently demonstrate a disregard for the complexity of all that exists. Such is the nature of absolute intransigence.
Below the video, I've included a graphic I found on the web a while back. I'm posting it because it provides a level of reason and rationality that is so often absent in the efforts of those who are intent on undermining science. Please click on the image to view it full size.
OK, Mo's gone off the deep end...which means he's moving into election mode. In the following video, Mo begins by pointing out that the wives of both presidential candidates are beautiful women. From there, he posits that millions of American men are going to want to know how to dress up like these glam gals. To see if this is possible, Mo seeks out the services of Peppermint, a drag queen...hoping to get some insider tips and few tricks of the trade.
In this episode, Dion Flynn (I have no idea where Mo found him) has volunteered to have Peppermint transform him into Michelle Obama. After some work...and plenty of product...Mo introduces the newly "minted" man...woman...Michelle Obama impersonator. Whether she looks fabulous is open to debate. I think the hair and the makeup were a success...but the dress isn't working.
As I watched this video, I started to wonder if Mo may was watching the tele the other night and became inspired when John Waters was reminiscing about all of his old movies and the antics that accompanied them? I'm not sure which channel it was on but I caught the last half of his stand up routine and it made me think about the drag queen of all drag queens...Divine. Taking a look at Mo's outfit and the set...listening the music...the whole drag queen theme...coincidence? Perhaps...but with all the John Waters' kitsch in this video, I'm gonna say there's a good chance he was tuned in.
Remember Devo? Well they're back in the news...but not as a result of a musical renaissance. It seems that McDonald's recently introduced an American Idol happy meal figure that has some of the characteristics that made the band so identifiable...especially their flower pot hats. With that said, the band has decided to sue McDonald's for "stealing" their signature image.
Iconic 80s electronic band Devo is suing McDonalds for copyright infringement over a Happy Meal toy included as part of an American Idol promotion. The toy featured Devo's trademark plastic tiered red funnel hat, distinctive glasses, and orange jumpsuit and was named "New Wave Nigel." Devo popularized that unique look in the video for their 1980 hit "Whip It," and they say McDonalds is blatantly ripping them off [...].
Devo is currently riding the artistic integrity highway in explaining its legal action. Bassist Gerald Casale, credited with creating the band's unique look, is quoted as saying that McDonald's "didn't ask us anything. Plus, we don't like McDonalds', and we don't like American Idol, so we're doubly offended."
I suspect Devo might change their mind if the end result is a cut of the take. It's funny how a little cash can make so many problems suddenly vanish. Regardless, I can't blame the band for complaining...the toy is clearly modeled after the Devo look and that may well entitle them to some type of payment.
The following graphic is a mixture of a couple of the ideas I was considering for this posting. My ambivalence led me to combine what I was working on into one bizarre image...which seems fitting for anything related to Devo.
Make sure you don't miss Ryan Seacrest's cameo appearance in the Devo portion of the graphic. In the graphic, I chose the words of a Devo song, Jocko Homo, that comports with all the scuttlebutt about which way Ry Ry swings.
Some stories are too good to be true. It appears that the tax rebate checks which were part of the Bush administration's economic stimulus package have been effective...in stimulating the porn industry. An industry research firm reports an increase in revenues closely matches the distribution of the 173 billion dollar handout.
An unforeseen and surprising beneficiary of the Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that George Bush contends will "boost our economy and encourage job creation," has surfaced this week. An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans' mailboxes across the country.
According to Kirk Mishkin, Head Research Consultant for AIMRCo, "Many of the sites we surveyed have reported 20-30% growth in membership rates since mid-May when the checks were first sent out, and typically the summer is a slow period for this market."
Jillian Fox, spokeswoman for LSGmodels.com, one of the sites reporting figures to AIMRCo, added, "In a June 15, 2008 survey to our members, thirty two percent of respondents referenced the recent stimulus package as part of their decision to either become a new member, or renew an existing membership."
Perhaps this will lead the American Family Association to ask taxpayers to refuse their checks and call for a boycott of the government since one of their primary areas of focus is pornography.
Do you suppose that any of this money being spent on pornography is coming from upstanding Christian households? I can't help but imagine the Ted Haggard types lurking around on the down low to take full advantage of the extra dollars...if you know what I mean.
This could also be an opportunity for xxxchurch.com to jump in and push their program to put an end to the pornography obsession that they believe plagues many Christian men. Then again, maybe the AFA should forego the boycott and apply for funding through the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives and commence an outreach program to promote better family values.
Oh that Johnny Mac! First he showcased his singing talents with Bomb Iran (video below), an updated rendition of the Beach Boys hit, Barbara Ann. As if that weren't enough, he recently took the big leap from the 60's to the 90's to showcase his smooth dance moves with an artistic interpretation of Madonna's Vogue (video below).
But that's not all. Not to be outdone by Ronnie Reagan's years as a Hollywood heartthrob...and spurred on by his newfound success as the elder entertainer of the "Gray Old Party"...Johnny Mac is releasing a new CD complete with his take on the music of the last six decades. See the graphic below for details.
The songs he's chosen for this compilation have all been adapted to reflect his own life experiences and they're consistent with the themes and policies that have been the mainstay of a party that clings to the past in the same way that Joan Rivers skin clings to what remains of her long forgotten face.
From the neocon classic, Bomb Iran, to the modern day mantra of the McCain campaign, Babyl-On,...these songs will surely remind voters that John McCain is no newcomer to the ways of Washington. Hear him sing about the difficult moments that typified the struggles he faced in his early years in Mac's New Wife and Don't Go Breakin' My Arms. Enjoy his renewed spirit and his tribute to the Reagan years in a raucous rendition of the Beastie Boys' You Gotta Fight For The Right.
John McCain may not know the difference between Sunni and Shiite factions...or whether it's Somalia or Sudan that the U.S. needs to pressure...but he doesn't miss a single note in this must have CD. Don't have a CD player? Not to fear...neither does John McCain. This musical masterpiece will also be available on vinyl, eight track and cassette.
UPDATE:
An unidentified group is offering a free six pack of beer to the first 10,000 purchasers of McCain's CD. Callers will receive the beer in exchange for a promise that they'll place a bumper sticker on their cars. The bumper sticker is reported to read, "John McCain...Giving America The Song & Dance Routine".
McCain Interprets Madonna's Vogue
McCain Sings Bomb Bomb Iran
Johnny Mac Does The Decades
If one can believe the latest Gallup poll, the ideological distance between John McCain and George W. Bush is way too small for a large number of voters. In fact, nearly fifty percent of voters are very concerned that John McCain would pursue the same policies as his predecessor.
McCain faces a challenge in trying to convince voters to allow him to follow an unpopular president of the same party. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has attempted to link McCain to Bush by saying that electing McCain would effectively lead to a "third Bush term." Although McCain remains competitive in head-to-head matchups with Obama, the poll suggests that McCain may have more work to do to distance himself from Bush.
It is clearly a delicate balancing act for McCain, as Bush remains relatively popular with the Republican base. While only 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a majority of Republicans (60%) still do. Bush's approval rating among current McCain supporters is slightly lower, at 55%.
A recent CBS News poll asked registered voters what they thought McCain would do -- continue Bush's policies, change to more conservative policies, or change to less conservative policies. A plurality of 43% believe he would continue Bush's policies, but more expect some change -- either more conservative (21%) or less conservative (28%) policies. Thus, while most voters express concern about McCain being too much like Bush, most do not necessarily expect this to happen.
I doubt that McCain can take comfort in the CBS poll numbers. I'm of the opinion that a large precentage of the 21% who think McCain will be more conservative than Bush aren't going to vote for McCain. I say that because the GOP base generally thinks McCain is too liberal. Hence, I suspect that the respondents who stated McCain would be more conservative were left of center and don't view McCains conservative bona fides as a reason to vote for McCain.
Looking at the data regarding voter perceptions of Barack Obama's seems to support my contentions. The percentage of voters who are very concerned Obama will go too far in changing the Bush policies stands at 30%. I would suggest that number results primarily from those who are a part of the fervently conservative GOP base. While 30% may seem like a concerning number, a look at the second polling question sheds more light on the mood of the electorate as a whole.
Of particular interest is the mood of those who consider themselves to be independents. Looking at those numbers suggests that they want a solid majority (56 percent to 42 percent) prefer a president who will not align himself with the policies of George Bush.
Comparing the responses to the McCain questions with the responses to the Obama questions provides some interesting anecdotal evidence. My impression is that voters are fairly certain they don't want to continue the Bush administration policies and they see McCain being too far to the right. At the same time, there is some trepidation that Obama may be a little too far to the left.
At this moment, it looks like the electorate wants to be sure the next president won't give them more of the same...but won't completely reinvent the wheel. The fact that Obama seems to be moving towards the center seems to suggest that his campaign may have a pretty good understanding of the mood of the electorate. It remains to be seen which candidate can find the delicate balance needed to assure voters in order to insure victory.
She's two, two stars in one...but there simply isn't enough of her to go around. Yep, we're talking about Miley Cyrus, the Disney darling turned Vanity Fair vixen. In the following video, The Onion has some fun with Hannah Montana and her rise to fame.
Of course The Onion warns that her Whitney-esque "I'm every woman (teeny bop), it's all in me" persona can't last forever...predicting that she's destined to be "drained dry of entertainment value" if we continue to overindulge.
If the celebrity expert in the video has a handle on Cyrus' trajectory, one minute she's a wholesome role model for young girls and the next she's going to be on the cover of every tabloid getting out of a limo with Lohan, Spears, & Hilton in what can only be called a panoply of panty-free promiscuity.
The following three videos are the second segment in a series designed to provide the basics behind the theory of evolution. The first segment can be found here.
I introduced this segment to provide readers with a factual understanding of the arguments that comprise the theory of evolution and serve to dispel the numerous assertions made by creationists. All too often, those supporting intelligent design (the newly packaged creationism) attempt to provide oversimplified examples designed to undermine evolution. While this video series is clearly more complex than the creationist's contrivances, it has the benefit of being fact based.
How Evolution Works - Part Three: DNA
How Evolution Works - Part Four: Mutations
How Evolution Works - Part Five: Natural Selection
The following video is a trailer for a documentary titled, Spiral Up. The film's release date has yet to be established. The film was the idea of Scott Seskind, a social worker at a nursing home in Boulder where Nathan, the subject of the documentary (who also has Huntington's Disease) lives.
I first met Scott over a year ago when I responded to his Craigslist ad in search of a videographer. When I first spoke to Scott, he expressed his interest in making the film. Once we began filming, it was evident that Nathan was a remarkable person and it was also obvious why Scott had chosen to make the documentary.
Since then, we've been meeting, primarily on the weekends, and spending time filming Scott's conversations with Nathan and some of the other patients who know him at the nursing home.
While it can be said that we're documenting Nathan's battle with his disease...the real purpose, since the outset, has been to document his amazing spirit. You'll note in the trailer that Scott has pondered his motivations for making the film. Trust me when I say that he needn't do so...and anyone who takes the time to see Spiral Up will quickly realize that Nathan's story needed to be told.
In addition to posting the trailer here, I've featured it above in the "Front & Center" curtain section of Thought Theater. I hope you'll take the time to watch the trailer and tell others to stop by and do the same.
Spiral Up - Nathan's Story
While I frequently criticize religion and those who have used it as a vehicle for their own self-interest, every now and then I've come across some people of faith who are actually willing to take an honest look at people and then set out to make a difference. The following documentary, Missionary Positions, is about two such Christian ministers who started xxxchurch.com to assist Christians who are addicted to pornography. I wrote about their ministry in the past in a piece titled, Icebergs And Identities: What Lies Beneath?
Before proceeding I want to offer one caveat. I respect these guys for addressing an issue that is prevalent in society...as well as in many of those who are affiliated with religion. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the approach they employ will produce the intended outcome since I don't necessarily think that immersing oneself in religion actually puts a halt to this or any other addiction. I say as much because we're all aware of the many ministers who have succumbed to any number of carnal obsessions and fallen from grace.
In fact, part of the problem, as I've outline in the posting mentioned above, is that religion frequently seeks to cast sex as sin, ignoring the fact that it is an integral part of our human identity. In my opinion, the goal shouldn't be to extinguish pornography; it ought to be to encourage and educate our children that sex is a healthy component of human behavior and, when channeled properly, it should and will enhance our relationships.
Until we abandon the sex as sin construct, everything that is negatively associated with sex and porn will continue to propagate. I relate the pornography problem to the notion of, "you can pay me now or pay me later". When we cease stifling sex education in our schools and begin to encourage our children to incorporate their sexuality into a healthy identity, we will begin to disarm the power of pornography.
By the way, while pornography is the subject of this documentary, it is, for the most part, tastefully presented. The video is just over 71 minutes in length.
Did you know that Tim Gill is a homosexual activist who operates under the radar as a stealth politico intent on changing the political landscape and adding the scalps of God fearing Christians to his belt? This latest video offering from Focus on the Family's Turn Signal has to be one of their most transparent attempts to pander to their followers by portraying gay activism as a sinister effort to undermine conservative family values.
As I watched this video, I couldn't help but think back to my days in commercial real estate. OK, I'm sure you're wondering how in the hell is this related to the FOF video? Stay with me. After spending fourteen years in the business, I honed my skills at spotting tenants who were manipulative and on the precipice of having financial problems. One of the tell-tale signals was a sudden surge in complaints about their space...the AC wasn't working right, the janitorial staff was doing a lousy job, the tenant next door was too loud, and on and on.
Generally speaking, the strategy was to go on the offensive and portray oneself as a victim in anticipation of lacking the wherewithal to pay the rent or fulfill the remaining term of one's lease. When I first started in the business, these tenants had me standing on my head trying to please them, but over time I realized that more often than not, their complaints had nothing to do with me or the service our company was providing. It was simply the strategy of a cash strapped tenant to create mitigating circumstances for the moment when they were unable to pay rent...and their ultimate goal usually included being let out of their lease.
That brings me back to Focus on the Family and this video segment. First, Focus on the Family is far from bankrupt; having total receipts in excess of 140 million dollars each of the last three years. However, when one looks more closely, the arm of the organization that funds political activities, Focus Action, has seen a steady decline in revenues over the last three years.
In 2005, total receipts were just over 25 million with 6.84 million coming from direct public support...in 2006, total receipts were 15.16 million with 6.75 million coming from direct public support...and in 2007 total receipts were 9.8 million with 5.16 coming from direct public support.
Again, this is still a healthy amount of money and I'm not inferring that Focus Action is financially unsound. The point I'm making is that this video reminds me of the strategic smokescreens I witnessed in commercial real estate. In other words, the message to the followers (benefactors) is that the big bad gay bogeyman, who has a boat load of cash, is surreptitiously bankrolling the defeat of countless Christian conservatives, and unless the folks at FOF ante up, it's only going to get worse.
The powers that be at Focus know that the best way to milk the cash cow is to yank the collective chain of the misinformed minions...and nothing works better than questioning the veracity of the enemy while portraying oneself as the righteous victim. Look at the language they utilize in describing Gill and his efforts...flying under the radar...stacking the deck...he targeted 70 conservative candidates...here's how it works...his wealthy homosexual activist friends...control his image...what this man is up to. Clearly the goal is to make the viewer aware of Gill wealth...but even more importantly to make the viewer believe that he is deceptive and manipulative.
The truth of the matter is that Gill is a well-known figure on the political front and as an activist for the LGBT community. His activities are routinely reported in Colorado and in the national media and his organization is visible and accessible. Unlike James Dobson, Gill doesn't seek the spotlight. The truth of the matter is that reflects more on Dobson's motivations and modus operandi than upon Gill's. I suspect that's an irritation to Dobson's ego and all the more reason to vilify Gill.
The point I'm making is that men like Dobson are always aware of their waning influence and wherewithal...and that leads them to strike out like a cat backed into a corner. I could be wrong, but given Dobson's recent attacks on Barack Obama, his certain awareness that many in the religious community may vote Democratic in November, and the growing shift in the causes of interest to many up and coming religious leaders (causes of little interest to establishment evangelicals like poverty and climate change), I suspect he feels his kingdom is being threatened.
Then again, I would think a man of Dobson's faith would be focused on the blessings of the afterlife he so frequently espouses. In the end, it isn't that difficult to identify and understand the relevant contrasts and distinctive differences between Tim Gill and James Dobson. It's sure funny how actions speak louder than words, isn't is?
Apparently the best medicine for wing nuts who put their putters where they don't belong is to sponsor a constitutional amendment to protect marriage...since it's clear they didn't value the ones they were in.
Page One Q reports that Larry Craig, the wide stance toilet stall tap dancer, and David Vitter, the Christian commissar of clandestine call girl get-togethers, have joined together with other stalwart senators (not in a bathroom stall, mind you) to introduce the measure.
Two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43, dubbed the Marriage Protection Amendment. If ratified, the bill would amend the United States Constitution to state that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
I'm baffled by the logic these two senators are employing in putting their sullied signatures on an amendment designed to protect marriage from the homos. I just don't get how defining marriage to be between one man and one woman is going to help when these two and so many others already have major problems keeping count.
You see, for years, many of the marriages...between one man and one woman...have ended because one of the parties messed with the math...and the secretary, and the hooker, and the intern, and the guy in the next bathroom stall...if you know what I mean.
As I've tried to get my head around the benefits of Craig and Vitter sponsoring this amendment, I could only come up with one plausible explanation. They know that all you have to do to win the favor of the rabidly anti-gay constituents they represent is to keep feeding them the red meat they thrive upon. In other words, to hell with hypocrisy...the gays are coming...and we can't have that.
Rather than spend any more time attempting to understand the minds of these men or the constituents who support them, I think the following graphic will suffice.
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas. In that ruling, the sodomy laws still in existence in 13 states were overturned, homosexual sex was no longer criminalized in America, and homosexuals were finally brought into the protections of the constitution. The ruling was sweeping, overturning the prior 1986 case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had ruled that sexual privacy was not protected by the constitution.
The following documentary, Overruled!, produced by Lamda Legal, chronicles the events surrounding the case, the legal issues that confronted the homosexual community as a result of the existing sodomy laws, the challenges confronting the legal team, and the eventual ruling from the United States Supreme Court.
The case and the ruling may well be the most significant event in the history of gay rights and this video is a worthwhile recounting of that historic case. The video premiered online yesterday and it runs just under twenty minutes. If you would like to order a copy of the video, you can do so here.
Take a look at the following video and tell me you can't imagine that extreme religious groups in America could ever trigger the same sectarian strife that currently plagues the Middle East. I don't think the thought is that far fetched...and I'm convinced that the evidence supports the contention that ideological intransigence has led some religious leaders in the United States to the precipice of promoting acts of anarchy.
The gist of this video and many of the sermons that are being delivered in churches around the country is that the Bible is the only valid law. Further, the inference is that it is acceptable to ignore the laws of the nation when they conflict with God's law. What remains to be seen is the level of resistance that these religious zealots are willing to promote.
To understand how this movement evolved, one need look no further than the last seven years of the Bush presidency. By example, George Bush has given license to those who would elect to undermine or ignore established law in favor of divine guidance. Not only did Bush argue that his actions in office were the result of consultation with a higher being, he has frequently entertained and endorsed the notion that the court system is flawed and continues to engage in inappropriate "judicial activism."
Yes, he has grudgingly accepted the rulings of the courts...but not without willingly pressing the limits and challenging the conventional wisdom. These actions have established a growing sense of righteous infallibility amongst the faithful and their inclination for divinely driven defiance is palpable. My concern is how far the people his actions have enabled are willing to go should upcoming elections and rulings meet with their disapproval.
I realize what I'm positing may seem far fetched, but if one listens to the rumblings that are percolating in the evangelical community...inclusive of this video and James Dobson's current assault on Barack Obama...one begins to see a pattern of rejecting the authority of the government...especially if it continues to move in directions that do not uphold doctrine.
The reality of the matter is that evangelicals are still a formidable constituency that has shown a propensity to act in unison. Should that monolithic mentality be applied to the initiation of acts of anarchy, we could well witness the type of unrest that typified the Vietnam War era.
The fact that the last seven years have provided evangelicals a taste of the kind of kingdom they've long envisioned only exacerbates the potential for civil disobedience...and far worse. Toss in their beliefs about the end of days and the rapture and a worst case scenario isn't that much of a stretch. In fact, I suspect there are those who would view acts of anarchy as part and parcel of a preordained plan spelled out in the Bible.
While most Americans are preoccupied with the events taking place in the Middle East and the broader concept of the "war on terror", there is a growing body of evidence that suggests we need look no further than the confines of our own country to understand the dangers of ideological intransigence.
Let me be clear, I'm not predicting that anarchy is inevitable. On the other hand, I am signaling a warning that we're approaching a tumultuous transitional period. Unless we're mindful of the dangers of this smoldering mind set, we're at risk of being burned by the flames of fanaticism.
An Ohio science teacher seems to think that his Christian beliefs grant him the authority to support creationism while undermining the theory of evolution, to disregard the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the universe, and to brand his students with the image of a cross (see video below). After years of complaints about the teacher's inappropriate insertion of his religious ideology, the cross burning incident has finally led the school board to terminate him.
MOUNT VERNON, Ohio -- Supporters of John Freshwater stood in a parking lot yesterday asking God to inspire the school board to make the right decision.
Three hours later, the board announced that it intends to fire Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher.
Freshwater preached his Christian beliefs about how the world began, discredited evolution and didn't teach the required science curriculum, the board says. He was told to stop teaching creationism and intelligent design, but he continued to do so, an investigation found.
Complaints about Freshwater's teachings were made by teachers and people in the community for at least 11 years, a school administrator told consultants. Freshwater has taught eighth-grade science in the district for 21 years.
In April, the school board hired HR On Call Inc. to investigate Freshwater, four months after the parents of a child in his class said he had burned a cross into the child's arm, causing swelling and blistering.
Freshwater told investigators the marks were X's, not crosses. But all of the students interviewed in the investigation reported being branded with crosses. The investigation report includes a photo of one student's arm with a long vertical line and a short horizontal line running through it.
A teacher who worked in Freshwater's classroom last year also reported to investigators that Freshwater told his class that homosexuality is a sin.
Freshwater's friend Dave Daubenmire defended him.
"With the exception of the cross-burning episode. ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he said.
"Do you think there are other teachers in the public classroom that are trying to drive their opinions in the classroom?" Daubenmire asked. "I don't care who you are. You cannot separate your value system from your teaching."
Look, Mr. Freshwater is entitled to his own beliefs. Unfortunately, like so many other Christians, he feels compelled to impose those beliefs on others. Even worse, he appears determined to allow his Biblical beliefs to overshadow his role as a teacher of established and credible science. If Freshwater wants to teach theology, then he shouldn't be doing so in a science class.
I took note of the remarks of his friend, Dave Daubenmire, in defending Freshwater's actions as consistent with the values of parents in the school district. Unfortunately, a science education has nothing to do with teaching religious doctrine...regardless of how many parents share Freshwater's beliefs. Frankly, the actions of Freshwater and his supporters demonstrates the confrontational strategy being embraced by more and more Christians. Sadly, their beliefs are so rigid and intransigent that nothing short of teaching directly from the Bible is satisfactory.
Take a look at how the Christian media reports the story.
But a spokesman for Freshwater, Dave Daubenmire, downplayed the parents' accusations and called the investigation one-sided, with "old trumped-up charges brought back to the table."
Daubenmire insisted to WND that the "cross branding" was nothing of the sort. He characterized it as a science experiment Freshwater had been doing for 21 years in which he made X marks, not crosses, on the students' skin with a Tesa Coil to demonstrate electrical current.
Daubenmire pointed out experts have affirmed the experiment causes no injury to students.
Daubenmire argued that the accusations about teaching intelligent design or creationism date back to 2003, when Freshwater was challenging students to "clinically analyze evolution."
Just after the accusing family hired an attorney, school officials told Freshwater he had to remove all religious items from his classroom, including a personal Bible he had on his desk.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, says, "Mr. Freshwater advised his students that although he is forced to teach from the textbooks, the teachings are wrong or not proven according to the Bible."
As WND reported, Freshwater took down the Christian items but refused to remove his Bible, which he has kept on his desk for 18 years.
Daubenmire, of Pass The Salt Ministries and Minutemen United, explained to WND at the time that Freshwater had not used the Bible in his interaction with students. But he said the teacher also believed he should not forfeit his constitutional rights just because of his occupation.
So were supposed to view Mr. Daubenmire as an impartial witness...regardless of his religious affiliations? Additionally, aren't we being asked to see Mr. Freshwater as a victim...a man who has had his constitutional rights abridged? Never mind that the separation of church and state prohibits the activities he insists on incorporating in his role as an educator.
The truth of the matter is that a number of Christians are convinced they are engaged in a war which means they are required to challenge and confront any and all aspects of culture and society that are in conflict with their beliefs. I'm convinced that this faction is constantly looking for opportunities to overturn existing laws and impose legislation that is consistent with their interpretations of the Bible.
Take a look at Mr. Daubenmire's profile.
Radically born-again in 1987, I was honored that the Lord had called me to the fight. Although a pew-sitting, selfish Christian, I learned quickly that if we were to turn back the hand of the oppressor, sitting in the pew and praying for God's grace would not be enough. As I had shared with our teams over the years, it was time to take what we had learned to the field. No battle, no victory.
After twenty-five years in the system, the Lord had other plans for me. I walked away from coaching football, my teaching career and cozy retirement benefits and gave my life to "coaching the church". Lord knows the church needs it. We started Pass the Salt Ministries and will travel wherever we find a listening ear and a open pulpit.
Using a local radio show I began to cry-out for Christian men who were willing to stand and fight. Out of this cry came Minutemen United a band of like-minded Christian brothers and sisters who are not afraid to take our faith to the streets. Over the past five years we have:
Successfully battled entry level pornography in Meijers Department stores.
Fought for the 10 Commandment displays in Ohio.
Journeyed to Alabama and defended Judge Roy Moore and the Rock.
Helped get Ohio's Marriage amendment on the ballot.
Spent a week in Fla. Defending Terri Schiavo.
Kept a steady presence at our local abortion clinic.
Passed out "Living Water" bottles at Columbus' Gay Pride parade.PASS THE SALT was formed to encourage the Body of Christ to step into the cultural war. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood..." PASS THE SALT is convinced that God has given the Body a window of opportunity to take our culture back.
PASS THE SALT is committed to bringing together the body of Christ across denominational, racial, and economical borders to demonstrate to America the power of Biblical unity. Our vision is to unite, organize, and mobilize the Army of God to be SALT and Light as stated in MATTHEW 5:12.
Now really, are we to conclude that the relationship between Daubenmire and Freshwater has nothing to do with their desire to push a particular agenda? I suspect that this situation is a calculated assault designed to garner the attention of other religious minded individuals that are sympathetic to the notion that Christians are being victimized.
I'm of the opinion that this effort is far more organized than one might expect. I'll offer two examples to support that possibility. First, there is a concerted effort underway to have churches violate the requirements of their tax exempt status this coming election by making specific candidate endorsements. The purpose of this effort is to establish the grounds under which they can assert that their first amendment rights are being violated. The goal is to remove the prohibitions contained in the notion of separation of church and state.
Second, I've taken note of the rhetoric being offered by James Dobson and his minions at Focus on the Family in response to a speech given by Barack Obama in 2006. Specifically, Tom Minnery makes a concerted effort to argue that America is a "Christian nation"...a phrase that is being aggressively pushed by many of those associated with the religious right. Minnery goes on to argue that religious doctrine is an effective tool with which to direct society and that it is the inherent principle underlying the establishment of this country. The goal of this argument is to further blur the lines between church and state until we reach the point where religion is accepted as the a priori foundation for our system of governance.
Here's some quotations from the discussion between Dobson and Minnery on the radio broadcast that suggest as much.
Minnery: "I mean, read what George Washington said about that: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." That's our first president."
Minnery: "Our second president, John Adams, said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
For 18 minutes, Dobson excoriated Obama for his political stands -- especially Obama's belief that a politician must take into account a variety of views on moral issues.
"Now that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution," Dobson said. "This is why we have elections. To support what we believe to be wise and moral. We don't have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality, which is what he is suggesting."
Again, I contend that the goal is to reach the point at which the accepted constitutional interpretation is that religious ideology can and should be directly applied to all aspects of government. In the end, the goal is to suggest that any limitation on religious expression as it relates to government is a violation of freedom of speech and expression. The calculation assumes that since a large majority of Americans are Christians, they would be amenable to enacting religiously inspired legislation by majority rule.
The only remaining obstacle would be the court system...and one would have to live in a bubble to have missed the deliberate effort to portray the judiciary in a bad light. If these ideologues can convince the public that the judiciary must be bound by majority rule...and that any ruling inconsistent with that construct can and should be invalidated as an act of judicial activism...they will have succeeded in establishing a virtual theocracy. In such an environment, minority rights (Dobson cleverly describes them as the lowest common denominator) would be disregarded whenever they failed to meet the acceptable religious standards of the majority.
In the end, they seek to effect the rejection of a secular society that affords the same rights to all people regardless of religious beliefs...or the lack thereof. While they currently avoid calling for the government to apply Biblically defined punitive actions against those who violate their brand of religious ideology (homosexuality is wrong but they allow it so long as it is never viewed as acceptable moral behavior or granted any legislative legitimization), there is little reason to believe that they wouldn't seek to roll back the rights already granted as well as impose prohibitions (reinstating sodomy laws).
I personally believe that if these zealots were to ever attain the power they seek, they would soon begin to impose punitive measures...arguing that a Christian nation cannot succeed if it fails to uphold and enforce the accepted ideology. Further, they would feel justified in carrying out such actions and dissent would be stifled as little more than a blatant display of blasphemy.
In the end, those who look at the Taliban and Sharia Law as the embodiment of theocratic tyranny would be well served to consider the similarities found in all those who promote an intransigent ideology. Truth be told, there is a fine line between the concept of "live and let live" and its incorrigible opposite, "live this way or die".