It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for some Republicans to get into heaven. (Pt. 1)
Where, oh where, to start on this one? (P.S. — I know Deuteronomy is in the OT and that Jesus didn’t really say it on earth, but God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit and they’re all part of the same whole.)
How about this:
“There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Deuteronomy 15:11
Or this:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.’” Matthew 25:41-45
Or maybe this:
“People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” 1 Timothy 6:9-10
I haven’t been a Christian in years; I received an off-and-on upbringing as a Southern Baptist, largely because my granddaddy was a minister. To this day, I believe that, while he may not be the only way to heaven (if heaven exists), Jesus was still a pretty cool dude. Modest, humble, generous, non-judgmental, slow to anger, all-inclusive, lover of honesty and hater of hypocrisy–he sounds like the kind of friend everyone ought to have. And, he sounds like a liberal.
He says do not store up treasures, God will provide for you. He says that a wealthy man should be kind and generous to his less fortunate brethren. He says that the love of money leads to corruption. He says that he is no better, no more deserving, than the next guy, and that we should all lend a hand to each other.
Sounds like a liberal!
Now, some people might argue that Jesus would be a conservative because he doesn’t like gays. To this I say, although Jesus may disapprove of homosexuality (and I’m not a bit convinced of this, but for the sake of argument, I’ll make a half-assed, not-really concession), he would never punish a gay man for love. Sex, maybe, but not love. Let’s not forget that Jesus hung around with what the Pharisees considered to be the scum of the earth. The people he kept company with were sinners through and through–so, please, make your case about how he welcomes whores and lepers but snubs the gays, please. I’d love to hear it so I can tell you how wrong it is. Jesus loves everyone, even gays.
Someone might argue that Jesus was anti-taxes, and that would make him a conservative. Wrong! Jesus was against the corruption in the taxation system. Did you read the quote above about being openhanded to the poor and needy? That’s redistribution of wealth, my friends, to some degree. I don’t think Jesus would disapprove of a tax surplus going to health care, social security, and other reforms that help the poor. He’s probably aware that, if the government doesn’t do it, nobody will.
Speaking of Jesus being anti-corruption, what do you think he would think of invading a sovereign nation to raid their natural resources? Pretty greedy, Bush and Cheney. Jesus is decidedly anti-greed.
Let’s all face it: Jesus was a liberal hippie bordering on pinko commie. He was a sandal-wearing, granola-eating, peace-loving liberal liberal liberal.
Which means that either Bush is lying about doing God’s will, or God is playing a righteous joke on W. ‘Cause I’m pretty sure that God and Jesus are having none of this.
More later.
The L.A. County justice system at work.
Ordinarily, I don’t give a shit about celebrities–especially celebrities like Paris Hilton. I judge celebrities the same as I just people I would or would not like to be my friend: on their personality, on their actions. I rarely make friends with ‘party girls,’ and sometimes, it chaps my ass that I have to see them all over TV instead of the real news.
I find, however, that this latest Paris Hilton story could contain a victory for us all.
You’d have to be living under a rock–or with no access to the media or with no people who have access to the media–not to know that Paris Hilton went to jail. She went to jail for violating probation twice on a ‘reckless’ (i.e., drunk) driving charge. Let me just stop and say that I’ve known people who were caught driving drunk and didn’t get busted down to ‘reckless’ driving. Paris pleaded no contest, and she got 30 days’ probation and a suspended license. She also was forced into alcohol education (did she have to actually go? I wonder) and fined $1500, which, I imagine, is the equivalent of the rest of us being fined $15. So far, the penalties haven’t been very harsh–she can’t drive, but she doesn’t really work so that isn’t a problem; she has to learn about what alcohol does to your body, which she probably needs; and she has to pay what is, for her, a pittance.
Nevertheless, she violated her probation. Twice. With her money, can’t she just hire a driver?
So, in a remarkable decision by Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, Paris had to go to jail for breaking the law. And in an unremarkable decision by L.A County Sherriff Lee Baca, she was released from jail, citing undisclosed ‘medical reasons.’ I rarely watch Fox News Channel, but every now and again, I turn on Hannity and Colmes for a laugh; I was actually interested in the show last night, because they had a ‘panel’ (of celebrities, but whatever) discussing Paris’s fate. One said that a psychologist had visited Paris just before her release, and everyone was speculating that she may have be released due to depression. My fiancee and I had been speculating this too–Bobby said that he heard she wasn’t eating or something, and I said that letting her go because she is depressed is fucking bullshit.
Which it is.
Nobody likes going to jail. Nobody. If they did, it wouldn’t be jail, it would be a resort–a really cheap one. (No dust ruffle? What kind of place are you running here?) So yeah, expect Paris to get depressed. If she stops eating, give her a glucose I.V. If everyone who stopped eating out of protest were let out of jail, everyone could get out by this precedent.
Yes, I realize she’s a ‘non-violent offender;’ but the non-violence of her offense was luck and the late hour, because nobody was around for her to crash her car into. She was driving drunk and she could have killed someone. It happens all the time. Far too often. She broke the law and she deserves to pay the price. I know plenty of people who have gotten DUIs; some of them still haven’t been able to get their driver’s licenses back, and they actually have to work for a living.
I read this in the CNN story today:
The decision by Sheriff Lee Baca to move Hilton chafed prosecutors and Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, who spelled out during sentencing that Hilton was not allowed to serve house detention.
That was a good move–after all, I’m sure Paris lives in a multi-million dollar paradise. This isn’t like Cherish, she doesn’t have to be cooped up in a tiny apartment with a TV and the pidgeons for company. I have heard that she was also, as part of her ‘house arrest,’ able to work–’work,’ for Paris Hilton, consists of going to parties because people pay her. I hope to Christ that I just heard incorrectly.
Look, I’m a working-class Jane, and yes, part of me does resent Paris’s lifestyle. Not necessarily because of money envy (there’s a certain part of me that will never pay more than $60 for a pair of shoes, ever), but because she flaunts her wealth and acts like she is above the law. She may be a rich, young, American heiress, but she’s not–and will never be–above the law.
Paris needs to go back to jail and serve her time like an American. Then the American public will prevail over the ridiculous, non-newsworthy, self-destructive behavior that we are forced to watch without end. And hopefully, Paris will learn a lesson before she kills someone–herself or someone else.
Gore not a hypocrite? *Gasp*
I will freely admit that I used to think Al Gore was a bit of a nutcase. Invented the internet? I had the same mental image that the rest of uninformed Americans had, the one Al Franken lays out in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: Al Gore, sitting up late at night, furiously writing code for the internet. My God, I thought, how could a man so stupidly make a claim like that?
It turns out I’m the stupid one. Not only was Al Gore relentlessly misquoted, he really did help create the internet–through funding.
The latest Gore “hypocrisy” says that, despite his global-warming crusade, he pays a lot more in electric bills than the ‘liberal’ media thinks is proper. I was disheartened by this, until I read an article about Gore on the Time magazine website that says:
“The anti-Gore crowd zinged him recently because his electricity bill last August was 10 times the local average. The Gores pay extra to get 100% of their power from renewable sources, and their zealous retrofitting [of energy efficient windows, heating and cooling units, and solar panels] will no doubt bring their costs down.”
Wow, the ‘liberal’ media sure got their facts straight the first time.
Why do we still listen to media slander campaigns? They’ve done everything they can to demonize liberals; and until they recently realized that most Americans don’t like George Bush or his current policies, if a Republican scandal came up (like messing around with underage boys), it quietly went away after a short time. I realize that Clinton broke the law when he lied under oath, but at least his infidelity was legal and between two consenting adults. Also, it was heterosexual, a fact that I wouldn’t normally bring into play except to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the Republican party.
A quote in the article, “The Last Temptation of Al Gore,” bothered me though. It said, “Why else would you write a book like [The Assault on Reason], they say, if you weren’t laying down a marker for 2008 [elections]?”
Do people really think that the book was a publicity stunt? Al Gore wrote that book because we needed that book. We needed someone to step up and speak out about what the current administration is doing to keep the American citizens in check. They want us to be cowed so that they can serve their own interests. Don’t make any mistake about Bush’s policies: he wasn’t sent by God, he was sent by the wealthiest Americans to create policy catering to their own needs.
Al Gore, an American citizen, felt that need as strongly as we all do. The right-wing slander brigade keeps trying to villify him, but I believe Al will come out on top. Hopefully, we all will.
And one more thing: Al Gore is not a hypocrite.
The Last Temptation of Al Gore, Time.com.
The danger of buzzwords.
I’ve been reading Al Gore’s new book, The Assault on Reason. I really love this book, even though I’m not very far along yet. He speaks of things that I’ve been waiting, dreaming, wanting desperately for someone to say right out loud for awhile. One thing he speaks of is the clever but dangerous use of buzzwords in politics: terrorist, liberal, libs, patriotism, support our troops (that one makes me want to gag).Everyone who isn’t a conservative is asking the same question these days: since when is it bad to be a liberal? When did America begin hating us? The answer is, of course, that it’s not bad and it never has been. Given that, in the last election, the majority of people voted Democrat, one can’t even logically say that America hates us. In fact, liberals are looking mighty damn fine right now.
So why is it such a bad thing to be a liberal today? Is it because we’re reasonable, sensible people who don’t agree with the current administration? My God, what a coup that was. In his new book, Al Gore mentions that there was more press coverage on his inappropriate sighing during his debate with GWB than there was about any of the issues they discussed. As much as I hate to generalize about a party’s behavior, I have to say that certain Republicans have turned our free press into a propaganda free-for-all since the middle of Clinton’s second term. They took the election away from Gore by making him look like a crybaby because some votes weren’t counted correctly and he wanted a recount in the opposing candidate’s brother’s state–wahhhhhhhhhh, wahhhhh, our democracy is being tampered with, someone is trying to usurp my rightful presidency, I’m telling my Mommy!
If I don’t want our troops invading a more or less innocent country, I am unpatriotic. If I don’t think it’s right to spy on me, to tap my phones, to create long lines at airports and give up all of my privacy, I’m pro-terrorist. If I want the Earth to be a safe place for my children’s children, I’m a selfish hippie tree-hugger. If I want to use environmentally safe fuels and natural materials, well, I’m still a tree-hugger. If I want to raise taxes to decrease the deficit, boost the economy, and fund government programs, I’m accused of wanting to tax the poor out of existence. Let me tell you something, honey–I’ve been poor, I’m still poor, and the Bush tax cuts didn’t help me a damn bit. Three hundred bucks spread over a period of a year is about 25 dollars a month–what poor person wouldn’t sacrifice $25 or so a month to increase their health care benefits, their child care opportunities, their educational opportunities (didn’t we all notice a tuition hike right after Bush’s election?), and ensure some sort of retirement so that they don’t have to wait tables or scrub floors their entire lives?
This is the effect of buzzwords in politics. Things that all reasonable people would want are made into evil, heinous, fear-provoking issues that get ‘talking point’-ed to death on Fox News until they are completely unfeasible. Buzzwords only work if people believe them, though; they also only work if people hear them in the first place. For the sake of America, maybe we should all turn off the news.
Primary concerns.
Generally, I adore the primaries. Knowing that, within months, a certain grand old party will be taking as many pot-shots at my beloved Democrats as they can, it’s nice to watch them turn inward and harp on each other for awhile. A particularly heartening moment that Al Franken recalls from the 2000 elections: Bush, when asked about a political biography that he was supposedly reading, completely choked and began spouting his usual rhetoric about changing the tone in Washington or whatever the current hot topic was at the time. When asked his next question, John McCain answered it quickly and spent the rest of his time filling in the information that Bush should have learned from the book he’d supposedly just read. Classic.
This upcoming Democratic primary has me very worried, though. I’m not racist and I’m not sexist; I believe that a man or a woman, regardless of race, could do an amazing job as president. I am, however, concerned that we get a Democrat in office as quickly as humanly possible. I am afraid that our forerunners, Clinton and Obama, might hurt our chances. I’m not certain that America is ready for a woman to be president, no matter how badly the Bush administration has fucked up. Obama is a man, and he may be able to make history despite the remaining presence of racism in our country, but I think that Mrs. Clinton would have a very difficult time pulling this election off. For one, she’s a chick, which is still worse than being a man in this respect. Secondly, she’s seen as being cold and callous, thanks to the Republican slander and lie machine. There are enough people who hate Hillary to make her a risky candidate. There was enough scandal regarding herself and her husband during his administration for the GOP to have more than enough fuel for its hateful, America-hating, selfish, money-grubbing fire. Yes, fire can be all of those things.
Democrats prevailed overall in the last election, but barely. Are we willing to risk it on Hillary? I have no doubt that, if she’s anything like her husband, her presidency would create another strong period of time for America; I just doubt that Americans will give her a chance to do the job. We desperately need a Democrat in office now. Just something to think about.
To smokers and nonsmokers.
I am a smoker. I am not an across-the-board apologist for smokers, though. I recognize that second-hand smoke is harmful to people. I recognize that, when nonsmokers go to bars and out to dinner, they don’t necessarily want to be standing in a cloud of smoke all night. That having been said, it is my perfectly legal right to smoke. I think if we come to an understanding, we could make this whole tobacco debate obsolete.
I, as a smoker, agree not to smoke in bars, restaurants, and enclosed areas like elevators when nonsmokers are present. I agree not to smoke if I am sitting outside in close proximity to a nonsmoker, unless for some reason the nonsmoker is sitting in a designated smoking area. I shall define “close proximity” as “anywhere that the smoke might invade the nonsmokers personal space, either because of the breeze or because of my proximity to the nonsmoker.” I agree never, ever, to smoke in a nonsmoker’s home unless they give me permission (and they rarely do; Amy Sedaris is such a doll for putting out ashtrays). Ditto for not smoking in a nonsmoker’s car, although I will unabashedly smoke in rental cars and trucks, regardless of the rules in place, unless it’s some really posh car. I will not smoke in large crowds unless there are other smokers around. All of these concessions go double when there is a pregnant woman or child involved.
As nonsmokers, I expect, in return for my courtesy, that you stop coughing pointedly if you pass me in a parking lot where my fiancee and I are smoking next to my car. It’s rude, and you’re standing far enough away when you walk by that the smoke isn’t bothering you in the slightest. If you’re not, walk a little further away. I was already there, next to my car, so you could walk a little further away, and there would be no problems. I also demand that you stop giving me lectures about how bad smoking is. I know how bad smoking is. I choose to do it regardless of the health risks. I also demand that you concede that, outside of a certain radius in an open area (i.e., outdoors), smoking is not harmful to others due to secondhand smoke. It’s really just not. Smoke dissipates, and smokers don’t create nearly as much smoke as, say, cars produce exhaust. Let’s not all end up like Santa Ana, CA, where you can’t smoke outside anywhere on public property. Let’s be reasonable.
Speaking of reasonable, let’s talk politics a bit. First, I don’t think it’s fair to tax cigarettes until they’re absolutely unaffordable. Smoking is the vice of the poor; let us have something, for Christ’s sake. In California, until June of 2006, the tax was 46.76%. That’s ridiculous. I don’t care what the money is going to. I don’t care if it’s going to deaf, one-legged blind children. I think that if the taxes are going toward something, we should all be paying the taxes. It’s not quite fair to tax me because I have a vice, especially since so many laws are in place now to prevent me from hurting others with my habit Imagine the revolt if we had outrageous taxes on pornography (they’re talking about it) or junk food. The government is specifically targeting things that they deem “unhealthy, unwholesome” and taxing them to death to pay for other things–God knows what other things. We really should not be letting them nickel and dime us for everything we’re worth, especially considering that the majority of the people who are likely to indulge in things like smoking and junk food are not at the high end of the economic scale in America. Rich people eat organic hippie food. We eat from the 7-11. I’m not trying to make a gross generalization or start a class war, I’m just pointing out an obvious difference between the classes. So stop taxing our vices.
Secondly, I think that the absolute law that there is no smoking in public in certain cities, anywhere, is unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of our free market economy. We don’t need laws to regulate smoking in restaurants, bars, and public facilities; the power of the free market will do that for us. Here’s the thing: if you’re a nonsmoker, you will gravitate toward nonsmoking establishments IF you’re that up in arms about it. If your favorite smoking establishments lose enough business from nonsmokers gravitating away from it, they will make it nonsmoking. Simple as that. If they don’t, then at least they get to make that decision for themselves. Too many liberties are being taken away from Americans today, and I think that decision is one that should fall under the jurisdiction of individual business owners. There is a certain bar in Columbus, Ohio that I used to frequent, a dive bar that felt like home. Always the same patrons, same bartenders, a real family-type atmosphere. When the smoking ban was enacted in Columbus, it lasted for about five minutes in this bar; people wanted to go there, and they wanted to smoke. There weren’t nonsmokers in this bar. If they came in, they usually didn’t stay long, and not because of the smoking–usually because of the atmosphere, which I won’t describe in detail in case somebody, somewhere, is reading this and wants to bust them. It was more economical for this bar to risk paying the fines than to ban their customers from smoking. I think that is a decision that should be in the hands of business owners. And if you don’t like smoking, don’t go places that support smokers. You’re not more special because you don’t smoke and I do. You don’t get to go anywhere you want while I have to hide in alleys, behind corners, and pretend that I don’t smoke. I think this is one instance of segregated society that could actually work. If you’re a nonsmoker and a business allows smoking, they don’t want or need your business. So get over it.
It’s really just a matter of mutual consideration. I won’t smoke around you, and you loosen the vise-grip. That’s all.
