Sweet Negro Jesus!

Just so you don't think I'm racist, "Negro Jesus" is the actual title of this picture. Anyway, I was bored and surfin' the Internet pages of the right-wing British paper The Telegraph and came across the following headline: "Sacha Baron Cohen's black Jesus to shock America." The description of the article is, "Sacha Baron Cohen is preparing to shock America with his latest film, which is said to contain a black model called Jesus wearing a loincloth and a crown of thorns." LOL.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, terrifies white hicks quite like the notion that Jesus was black / Arab / not totally white. I remember way the hell back in 2004 when The Passion of the Christ came out, and among the charges of anti-Semitism and other sundry criticism Mel Gibson received for that sadistic piece of dead languaged shit based on Jewish fairytales from the Bronze Age, was that he cast a white guy named Jim Caviezel as Jesus. He went to all the trouble of making the actors learn Aramaic and Latin, filmed the movie entirely in those languages and initially didn't want English subtitles because Jesus couldn't read (actually, he just wanted the audience to focus on the horrible torture of Jesus by the Joooos! rather than read *scoffs* the actual dialogue among the characters), but he couldn't be bothered to cast an Arab-looking guy to play Jesus. Of course, that didn't bother America. The Passion is the most successful R-Rated movie in history.

I saw it at a theater nearby when it first came out, mainly because I'm a mashochist and enjoy having my eyes raped by the steaming piles of gooey baby shit that passes for "art" in our time. The theater was packed with every shade of obese, cross-clutching Jesus freak this side of the Mississippi and when it ended, people actually stood up and cheered. Everyone did, except me. There was this black guy in front of me who was crying, and not because Jesus was played by a white dude. He was seriously that moved by this two-hour bondage film about a fictional character. I, on the other hand, was shocked. Don't get me wrong- I heart movie violence. But I, like a dumbass, thought the movie was going to star Jesus and not his bleeding nail-on-a-whip wounds.

And I can't remember why I bothered with this post. Oh yeah, Borat's new movie. Atheism good. Religion bullshit, and all that. Man, I need a drink.

The Audacity of Audacity

Well, it's day eleven of Israel doing it's defendin' thang against them asshole idiot goat-fuckin' terrorists in Gaza, in case you haven't been keeping score. Or watching TV. Or surfing the Internet. So the Israelis attacked a school yesterday, killing 39 civilians. Big deal. That's where Hamas was hiding! Oh wait, no Palestinian militants were killed in that school attack? Well, *huffs* well, I heard that they were shooting at armed forces in the Israeli military! I mean, when armed forces in the military are shot at, you're supposed to respond by killing children! Israel has lost ten whole people since this started. Ten! Oh, there's been 670 Palestinian causalities? Dayum.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much longer our idiotic defense of Israel's actions can last given these incredibly lopsided numbers. It's getting more psychotic by the day to hear Israel whine about being a victim of periodic Hamas rocket attacks in civilian areas when they're the ones doing the constant rocketin' into schools and hospitals now.

But I happen to read something the other day that totally incensed me, and also offended and bemused me. I spent a while on the Jerusalem Post website in an attempt to stay fair and balanced like Bill O'Reilly when I came across an op-ed written by woman who actually insinuated that because Barack Obama hasn't said much on this conflict, it could force Israel to act hastily before Bush leaves to get what they want because Bush is Jew-friendly. Maybe I'm too outraged to get her true meaning, but I sincerely believe she is trying to blame some of their actions on Barack Obama's silence on this conflict. Barack Obama. The man who, in 13 days will become U.S. president. Not Israel's. God, what a Republican way to argue something! 9/11 is Bill Clinton's fault, even though G-Dub was in office at the time, and now this shit is Obama's fault when he's not even in a position to do anything about it yet! The woman said he should come out screaming in support of Israel and reaffirm America and Israel's special relationship. Bitch, we have one special relationship and it's with our mama England. Take a number.

And lest you think it's just Jews who are batshit nuts and blaming Obama for this current mess, today al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri said, and this is a direct fucking quote, "This is Obama whom the American machine of lies tried to portray as the rescuer who will change the policy of America. He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection." I've reread this sentence several times and I think I've succeeded in giving myself a slight stroke. I thought Obama was in D.C. working on the stimulus package; I didn't realize he was personally mowing down children in Gaza, and without affection no less! You think Perez Hilton would have posted a picture of that by now, maybe with a little cum dribbling down Obama's chin as he bayonets a small Muslim child. Of course, this is the same al-Zawahiri who called Obama a "house negro" or something to that effect after his victory in November and said he was a disgrace to "honorable" black Americans like Malcolm X. But it sounds nutty, even for a group as apeshit as al-Qaeda.

This day in history: Twenty nine years ago, Jimmy Carter gave $1.5 billion in loans to Chrysler, which the company was able to pay off in three years with the help of Lee Iacocca and his glorious, groundbreaking, genius mini-van concept. -Do you hear the choir of angels?- The mini-van would become a revolution in the auto industry and provide suburban soccer moms with a larger, 80s version of the station wagon that's still annoyingly cliche well into the 21st Century. That Iacocca prick's still alive, so they should dust him off and install him back as CEO. All he has to do is reinvent the wheel to save the American auto industry. And by "reinvent the wheel," I mean rip off those fuckin' Japs he so loathes.

Don't Imitate The Jews

I only read the op-ed section of my hometown paper when I'm bored or feel like insulting my intelligence. It's always filled with the paranoid, ill-informed rantings of the paranoid, ill-informed hicks who populate the tri-state area around my confused little town. I just happened to peruse this particular section today, and was greated by an article titled "Don't Imitate the Europeans." The author took issue with a previous op-ed written from the standpoint of a secularist (yeah, I'm not the only one in Appalachia) and conveniently, for my mocking pleasure, numbered her points.

The article kicks off thusly:

"1. That government’s “task” is to provide that “individual believers holding diverse convictions may challenge one another without ... interference.” Untrue. The First Amendment provides that government will not prefer one religion over another; and it forbids one’s harassment of another."

OK, the first part of your rebuttal is true and the second part is not. It's not true because you're using a red herring. What the first author wrote was that we may challenge each other's religions without interference, which is absolutely legal and a right recognized in any free society. We're discouraged from harassing people about it and it's illegal to discriminate others on the basis of their religion or lack of religion. Maybe you should remember that last part.

2. "That '(t)he greater the distance between church and state ... , the greater our religious liberty.' False. Complete neutrality, or absence of religious involvement in government affairs and vice versa, is termed “laicite.” It is the political system of secularism, which suppresses expression of religious belief in public and oppresses those who do it. By definition, religious freedom is “the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance” (source: Wikipedia)."

False false. You make the typical Republican logical fallacy of characterizing secularism as an organized political movement as opposed to a philosophy. The First Amendment protects against what you're freaking out about and banning religious practices or customs could never legally happen here, provided the First Amendment can survive the last 14 days of the Bush presidency.

"A leading secular state is France, where in 2004, religious symbols were banned in public schools. President Nicolas Sarkozy criticizes this type of “negative laicite;” and he intends to develop a “positive laicite,” which, as noted at Wikipedia, “recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups.” As France strives to progress beyond its stymieing century-old secular politics, the United States would be unwise to regress to embrace them."

I did LOL a little when I first read this. I have to respectfully disagree that increased secularism would be a step backwards for the U.S. I agree that the government shouldn't concern itself with banning religious symbols and clothing (which was the main point of the French law; it banned niquabs and yarmulkes in schools). In fact, government shouldn't deal in religion at all! Wow! Thank you for making my point for me! And this is the second time you've cited Wikipedia. Someone should have told you that's not a reputable source and if this were a college paper, you'd ge a D.

"French historian Alexis de Tocqueville, in his 1835 work Democracy in America, finds the synergy of faith and politics that he experiences here remarkable; and he concludes that religion in society is necessary to temper government’s propensities to seize authority (or to impose priority) over peoples’ expression of their convictions, and to inhibit peoples’ tendencies to surrender it."

I don't recall this particular summation in Democracy in America, though it's been four years since I read it and the book is 676 pages long. It's likely that deTocqueville was being ironic. He was also found our propensity to sue remarkable, which is impressive when you consider he wrote DIA in 1835. Not to mention American history is littered with instances when the government "seized authority over peoples' expression of their convictions." Where have you been the past eight years? Oh right. You're a Republican. So seizing authority over secularists'/peaceniks'/dissenters'/brown people's expression of their convictions is what the government is supposed to do. As long as your rights aren't being impeded, there's no problem.

"French philosopher Jacques Maritain, a drafter of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is quoted at Wikipedia praising the U.S. model of religious freedom in the mid-20th century as superior because it had both 'sharp distinction and actual cooperation' between church and state. He called it 'an historical treasure.' He begged: 'Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one.'"

The mid-20th Century. The mid-20th Century. Hmm...I'm trying to recollect what might have just occured around that time period in Europe that may have contributed to this quote but, damn, my lackluster American education is failing me. I think it was something to do with Jews and golden stars and gas chambers but I'm not sure. Maybe I should check Wikipedia.

It always insults me when religious people somehow try to twist the First Amendment or the writings of the Founding Fathers to support this notion that we're a Christian country (and just an FYI, The Federalist Papers pushing for the ratification of the Constitution were first published as a series of letters to the editors. A series of op-eds started this country!). The first European colonists may have been nutbag Christian fundamentalists but we were not established as a haven for this kind of warped world view. We're a beacon of religious freedom, which includes freedom from religion for millions of us rationalists. Israel is what happens when you "found" a country based on only one religion (and for only one religion).

To quote the late, great Henry David Thoreau, "The government is best which governs the least." So you can worship your invisible space god and I can worship my Richard Dawkins. Live and let live.

Bush Just Wants To Talk

Top story: George Bush is an asshole and uses meaningless buzz phrases and I want him to go away. George Bush has labeled Hamas' "attack" on Israel an "act of terror" and has called on the U.S. to help stem the trade of weapons to "terrorist groups." George Bush actually said, "The United States is leading diplomatic efforts to achieve a meaningful cease-fire that is fully respected," in his weekly radio address. George Bush said that. Three letters: L, O, and L! I thought you didn't negotiate with terrorists, G-Dub? And what's with this "diplomacy" shit in the Middle East? And since when did you give a fuck about "respect?" Are you going soft on us? What's next, you gonna make out with a dude in public?

Oh wait. Anyway...

This day in history: Exactly one year ago today, Barack Hussein Obama II won the Iowa caucus, effectively ending the "march to coronation" Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was expecting. I was happy when Obama won, because I knew he would be damn near impossible to defeat. My mother, however, was a huge Clinton supporter and didn't seem to understand that her preferred candidate got spanked. I had to explain to her how the caucus system works and even then, she was like, "But when does Hillary go?," like the caucus was an amusement park ride. In fact, my mother is one of those nightmare middle-aged women who almost voted for McCain because she was so bitter. In the end, she voted for Obama but not without a considerable amount of bitching and moaning. I have to admit, I got a little misty-eyed when Obama gave his victory speech. I guess you could say he cast some sort of magical negro spell over me with his oratorical cadence and cavalier black guy style. And I can't believe it was only a year ago! It feels like a decade!

Is It The Apocalypse Yet?

I almost got excited over the news that Israel is bombing the shit out of Gaza, prompting massive protests in the Muslim world over the 300 or so Palestinians who have died in nonstop rocket attacks since a ceasefire pact expired last week. Now, I don't want you to think I'm a sadist. I'm not. I'm just an atheist who is totally obsessed with the notion of The End.

The nihilist in me is really hoping this is the beginning of Armageddon. Of course, it can't really be the beginning of the end because not all the Jews are back in Israel and Obama hasn't taken office yet (Obama being the anti-Christ; read your Bibles, bitches!). But this is a good start.

I was ready to write a post blasting Israel but since I'm currently doped up on Ativan, I'm feeling vulnerable, indifferent, and slightly gooey at my center. Uh, anyway, I happened to read this lovely article in The Independent defending Israel and now I'm all confused.

There are a few components of this current iteration of the ancient Muslim-Jew blood feud that I'm having problems with. Firstly, *chuckles* literally the first thing the United States said (via our not at all incompetent Secretary of State Condi Rice) after the rockets burst in air was, "We blame the Muslims currently being destroyed by mortar fire for startin' dis shit. Y'all should have known who you be fuckin' with. Jewz 4 Lyfe!"*. That struck even me as heartless and cruel. Apparently the initial round of rocket attacks began in broad daylight, when the Israelis knew damn well there would be civilians and children around. So to turn around and blame these same people for starting the shit in the first place feels a touch insane. That's like blaming Iraqi civilians for goading us into invading their country.

Anyway, the article in The Independent basically breaks down the dichotomy of Israel. Should it exist or not? And if it should, how far should it go to defend itself? Is it a victim? Is it a bully? Blah blah blah. Basically, it's the same debate people have about the United States. It just makes me think that Israel is our total Mini-me. They're our little buddy; the "us" of the Middle East. We both can shoot you the big puppy dog eyes while bombing the shit out of something behind your back. We're two peas in a fucked up pod.

*a Beelzebub original translation

And now for something completely different...Disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich appointed a 71-year-old black guy named Roland Burris to fill Obama's vacated Senate seat. The Democratic leadership in Illinois is laughing at Blago and saying there's no fuckin' way they'll confirm this guy. I legitimately cannot believe Blago hasn't stepped down yet. He's like the energizer bunny of bullshit crooks. Maybe it's that hair. Fuck, that's the only way he'll be taken down; we must rip that hell hair off his head, thus rendering his powers useless! I'm also interested to know how much this Burris guy paid for that seat or if he "won" it the old-fashioned way- through smokey backroom quid pro quo wheelin' and dealin'. Anyway, I'm interested to see if the Democrats in Illinois actually do something about Blago or if they pussy out as usual.

All this and it's still 2008! Here's hoping 09 is half as interesting. :)