When The Truth Becomes A Crime~

Wikileaks maintains no political affiliation.
Wikileaks is not a conservative site.
Wikileaks is not a liberal site.
And Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange is not a criminal. He is not a terrorist. He is not a traitor or the enemy. His is simply someone who became frustrated with corruption, greed, hidden agendas, extortion, senseless murder, and censorship.

Although I can't speak for Mr. Assange, my educated guess would be, that like many of us in the world he became weary of the blatant and audacious lies and misrepresentations that world leaders and governments continually feed the people they presumably represent.

So he called them on it.
And how quickly he got their attention.

Whatever your current opinion of the Assange case, just scan some of the cables at Wikileaks. Do your own research. And ask yourself a few questions. If these global leaders and government sponsored agencies have nothing to fear, nothing that would indict them of possible nefarious activities...then why is one man such a colossal threat?           

Because Sometimes 140 Characters Doesn't Cover It

"Every ambitious would-be empire clarions it abroad that she is conquering the world to bring it peace, security and freedom, and is sacrificing her sons only for the most noble and humanitarian purposes. That is a lie, and it is an ancient lie, yet generations still rise and believe it! ... If America ever does seek Empire, and most nations do, then planned reforms in our domestic life will be abandoned, States Rights will be abolished -- in order to impose a centralized government upon us for the purpose of internal repudiation of freedom, and adventures abroad. The American Dream will then die -- on battlefields all over the world -- and a nation conceived in liberty will destroy liberty for Americans and impose tyranny on subject nations." 
~George S. Boutwell

What's It Worth To You?

I recently read an article on secular humanism where one of the followers was quoted as saying, "If God were really so vain as to insist on being constantly worshipped, then he would not be worth it." and I couldn't help but literally shake my head and wonder, "Do the majority of non-believers really think that the topic of praise and faith are that simple?  Or worse, that the billions who call themselves believers are that simple?"

To think that Christians are called upon to glorify God for the obligation of satisfying His ego is to completely misinterpret the purpose of worship.  God doesn't request that we exalt Him because of some multitude of mythical insecurities on His part or some raging Divine "attitude."  It's quite the opposite.  Like any loving, benevolent figure, Our Father has asked us to remember Him in our hearts and thoughts as a way of keeping us in touch with not only the Divine, but also to bond us to a unified sense of humanity, to remind us that there is more relevance to our existence than our own wants and desires, and that our lives extend far beyond our immediate circle.  When we take time to praise our Creator, we consciously set aside the frenetic (and often frivolous) aspects of our daily routines to reflect on grace and brotherhood and fellowship.  The process of giving thanks to God allows us to dwell within the mystical and ponder feats that otherwise, we may not contemplate, but it also allows us to reach out to our fellow man in a very tangible manner.  It makes sense to me that as human animals, we feel limited by our biology.  When we make room for that which is larger than ourselves, we often feel those limitations subside.

So, for those of us who are believers, praise and reverence to our Creator is a choice.  It's not forced upon us, or demanded.  It's requested...in a whisper and responded to in a resounding joy from a place so deep and mysterious, many of us forget it exists.  We waste so much of our day on tasks that are meaningless (and forgotten almost before we complete them) that being beholden to praise and reflection of God not only seems worth it...but, at least for me - necessary.

Was It All About The Jobs?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44802008/ns/today-books/t/jobs-biography-i-wanted-my-kids-know-me/

I find this article disturbing and heartbreaking.  Being consumed and driven by your work comes with the territory for any respectable CEO of a major conglomerate, especially Apple, and attempting to balance work and family life is a task that most of us struggle with to some degree.  But authorizing your biography for your children so they can know you?  This move seems a tad pathetic and disingenuous to say the least.  If you really wanted your children to know you Steve, how 'bout sitting in front of your Ipad while in your hotel room and spending an hour or so Skyping in the evening catching up?  Why not use any number of Apple film making tools to leave a private, live action diary for the family?  Why not pen a personal journal for them in your own words, in your own hand that remains unpublished?  C'mon...are we really suppose to buy this?  Damn straight we are...that's the whole point, isn't it?  Steve's forthcoming authorized biography is number one on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble websites.  It's a shame really, for someone who professed to be a practicing Buddhist, it seems Jobs clearly glossed over one of the central tenants of the faith -- releasing selfhood or ego.  I suppose being an icon has its price, indeed.

What Would Jesus Do? He Wouldn't High Five.

Osama bin Laden is dead, killed by Special Forces Navy SEALs at his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.  And many across the country are celebrating.  Rejoicing.

This is where the divine radioactive core of my Catholicism radiates and surprises even me.  As Catholics, we get a lot wrong.  A lot.  From pedophilia, to opulence, to archaic dogma.  But this is something we get right every time:  violence begets violence.  Murder begets murder.  No abortion.  No capital punishment.  Life is valued.  All life.  Period.

Yes, there should be consequences for terrorists who revel in slaughtering 'the infidels'.  When Osama and Company chose to target the United States that fateful morning in September, they made a conscious choice, a premeditated decision to kill thousands of people.  There should be repercussions.  But blatantly celebrating the demise of another human being, no matter how reprehensible and repugnant seems childish and petty, unenlightened and unevolved.

I know the logical question would be, "Well, Miss Mamby-Pamby-Gandhi-Granola-Girl, what would you do if someone was threatening your child or husband or close friend?"  I'd do whatever was necessary to protect my loved one, even if that meant wielding a fatal blow to another human being.  But I would never rejoice in taking a life. 

There is recompense and then there is relishing.  It's my hope that we don't continue to confuse the two.

Most Days I Can't Stand Him, Some Days I Adore Him -- And There's The Hitch

Christopher Hitchens is dying.  He's recently been diagnosed with esophageal cancer...and I'm pissed off about it.  I'm pretty sure he is too. 

If you've never heard of the author/polemicist/modern-day-gadfly, you've undoubtedly saved yourself a tremendous amount of ire and frustration.  On the other hand, you've also missed out on some of the most discerning and insightful social commentary of our time...whether you're inclined to agree with him or not. 

Hitchens has been a regular contributor to publications such as Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, Slate, and The Nation, in addition to being a best selling author of titles that include, god (lower case "g" intentional) Is Not Great, his anti-theist war cry, The Missionary Position, an unabashed attempt to defrock the legacy of Mother Teresa, and his most recent, Hitch-22, an autobiography in which he delves into the obligatory  homo-erotic-English-boarding-school dalliances and daddy-was-an-emotionally-distant-boozer cliches.

So what's the fascination with a guy that some people would write off as a divisive, arrogant blow-hard in love with the sound of his own voice?  Why the genuine melancholy over someone who is at once charming, condescending, snide, and aloof?  He's brilliant.  I'll miss him because he's brilliant.  I save the word brilliant for a select few that roam about on this intimate little planet of ours, but I'm not reluctant to bestow the usage on Hitchens, if for no other reason than the man has literally read every book known to man.  Twice.  And has retained so much information he's able to effortlessly recite everything from ancient Hindu Sanskrit passages to the Oslo Accords as if they were nursery rhymes.

Most of the time after reading one of his essays on the poison that is religion or hearing him go on (yet again) about the unconscionable sins of Bill Clinton, I want to punch him squarely in his smug, puffy face...but that's the point, isn't it?  And trust me...he's in on the joke.  Hitchens is that guy.  The man who divides a room.  The gent who draws a line in the sand with the plastic sword from his martini.  The one who angers you in such a visceral fashion that he forces you to rethink your current position and form an even stronger argument for why you believe it...if you still do by the time he's finished with you.

Not that he doesn't have some chinks in the armor.  I've found (especially regarding "god Is Not Great", a subject I happen to have a certain amount of expertise in) that chunks of his research are sloppy and unsupported by the majority of biblical scholars.  Basically, Hitchens' grand scheme is to have you become so irate and vexed over a sweeping blanket generalization, that you completely forgo any rational defense of his observations in favor of piss and vinegar.  Or to enthrall the already swooning sycophant beyond the point of messianic delirium and thereby closer to the center of Hitchens' sardonic web.

But there's something to be said about a man who is unapologetic about his convictions and yet, considerate and insightful enough to continually question those convictions and yes, even change them.  Hitchens is a man truly adhered to the theory of evolution, most certainly when it applies to intellect and reason.  I love that about him.  I love the way his mind works.  I love the way he's demanded that my mind work.  And the intellectual community will be far too quiet without him barreling about.  Get healthy, Hitch.  There are too many fine cigars left untouched for you to check out just yet.

Why Can't I Own A Canadian?

A friend of mine passed this along to me recently.  Yet another funny and poignant look at the hypocrisy and confusion of fundamentalists.  Honestly, there's so much material to work with, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.


Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)