Vexation #21: Feminists and Abortion
It's always dangerous to post anything that remotely relates to abortion since the issue tends to polarize readers, turning them into bears that eat poor, defenseless baby seals. *sigh* But i just need to wax neurotic on something along these lines.

And really, i don't know from where this is coming, but within the last few days, the idea has really frustrated me..

So i'm all for women's rights and all that, huh. But really, it becomes an uphill battle when feminists pursue mindless excusions into a realm just as phantastic as Middle Earth. You got it: i'm talking about when feminists speak of abortion as if it was a women's rights issue.

You're all familiar with this tact, right? "I'm not gonna let any man tell me what to do with my pregnancy!" *sigh* As if it ever had to do with that. The question of abortion is simple. It always has been simple. And dredge like this can only help confuse the matter (perhaps that's the idea, I don't know). So then, what is the one simple question that is the determinant of all abortion ethics.

Simply this: is the unborn child a full-fledged human person or is it not?

Those who favour legal and practiced abortions must maintain that its not. Those who favour the criminalization of abortion must maintain that it is. I'm not going to answer that question here as i've already done so to my satisfaction elsewhere, but i will say that if that unborn kid is not a full-fledged human person, then pro-lifers are wasting their time because there is no moral imperitive to save the life of something less than human. Heck, we could BBQ fetuses as appetizers and there would be nothing wrong with it. Conversely, if the unborn are full-fledged human persons, then pro-choicers are promoting something both atrocious and horrifying.

In any case, feminists who argue along abortions lines making abortion a women's rights issue need to stop snacking and stop giving women the bad name that they are. The Dane laughs derisively at such blatant stupidity.

Ha!

Is it just me or is Elijah Wood's Frodo just completely gay? (And by gay i don't mean "having homosexual inclinations" - I just mean "lame beyond imagination.") I mean really. In an otherwise totally cool series of films, Wood consistently overacts turning Frodo into a melodramatic priss. I mean what was that slo-mo scene at the end with him in the bed when all his pals from the fellowship come in one-by-one. Man, if i were Sam, i would slap him around a bit and tell him to get a grip. Cuz sure, the burden of the ring is terrible in its fell weight and all, but last i checked it only turned people invisible and evil - not into bad actors.

Vidblog #13: Tales from Vegas: Go Fish, Cracker!!
Being too sick with bronchitis a couple weeks back to celebrate Johnny T's birthday in Vegas with the usual suspects, i thought i would simulate virtually for you what would occur if i to be allowed into that rotten, rotten place. Let this be a lesson to all of you - a lesson in the the tragedy that is... [[dramatic crescendo]] Nevada.

Pal that i am, i added a one-stop arena of vidblog and other media-type fun to the site navigation. So click the lobster on the left for love Danish-style.

In response to my distaste for hosting advent candles as a bona fide part of the Sunday worship service, Kris9 responds that she likes the use of advent candles because she likes both liturgy and symbolism. My question then:

So how much symbolism is too much? Would it be okay to to reinstitute the sacrifice of animals a la the old covenant, not because we beilieve that these animals actually forgive sins, but because they point us to our Lord's sacrifice? Would it be okay to start incorporating-product placement-as-symbols inside the sactuary (imagine the pastor holding up Coke cans and VISA cards: "Jesus is like Coke, he's the real thing!" or "Jesus: just like VISA, he's everywhere you want to be").

Is there really much difference between the visual symbol of a Coke can and the visual symbol of a burning candle? Philosophically, no. In both cases, the symbols are entirely fabricated by well-intentioned human beings. In both cases, we're saying this thing represents another thing. In both cases, reaction to the proposed symbol must be highly subjective and personal (depending upon each individual's taste and experience). The only real difference is that product symbolism is more direct, since everybody knows that VISA is everywhere you want to be, but it's not readily apparent what a candle has to do with Christ.

So then what about animal sacrifice on the first Sunday of every month as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice for us. If we are to make up our own symbols and liturgy, this seems great because not only was it actually ordained for God's people by God himself, but the imagery is unmistakeable.

Oh wait, i know why. Because God himself had already given us sufficient imagery in the sacraments. "This is my body, broken for you." "This is my blood, shed for you." No really, our need for tokens of truth should have been satisfied in the signs of baptism and the Lord's table.

So i hope that everyone had a good time celebrating me yesterday...

Also, I'm eating a candy cane that was giving me by a homeless guy on the bus this morning. It wasn't The King though.

The Starbucks I frequent in the mornings between bus-transfers gave me personalized Christmas card this morning. That was just spooky. I don't think I'm gonna go there anymore. It's one thing for them to remeber what my usual drink is, but to get a Christmas card. *chills* I'm too much a creature of habit. (though obviously, blogging consistently is obviously not a habit).

p.s. I'm listening in this moment to Vince Guaraldi's "Christmas Time is Here" featuring the Charlie Brown chorus and that's giving me chills too. But in a good way.

So from this point forward, i will not be capitalizing the personal pronoun formerly known as "I." What originated as a convention to aid in clarity in early script, now struts simply as an ego-centric masquerade of self-aggrandizement. No, i don't know what that means either. I will, of course, continue to capitalize the pronoun when it falls at the beginning of a sentence or when it takes part in a title, but from now on, i'll endeavor to keep a little more consistency in my grammar.

Vidblog #12: Lo Siento, Pero Estoy Cansado

Why is the "liberation" America brings to nations little more than the forced imposition of our cherished political ideology? Well, what else do we call it when one nation decides for another nation just how it will now define its political ideology. Those who believe in the ideology will almost always believe that the conquering nation is liberating the errant nation. When the communists began to spread their dilapidated ideology across Europe and Asia, they believed they were liberating these nations from the excesses of capitalism. When Rome extended its rule over South and Central America, it believed that they were freeing the tribal peoples from improper living and government. When Islam spreads, it frees conquered territories of blasphemous infidels and brings these lands into holy alliance. Every ideological coup is a liberation from an oppresion of some kind. Hitler's facism relieved Germany, "liberating" it from the bungling Weimar-era governance.

To the conquering, every victory is a liberation. And so we introduce a weak-kneed democracy into these places that is not even as strong as our own weak-kneed democracy. I wonder what would happen if a nation rose up and decided for us that America would now operate as a true democracy. I wonder if we would consider that a liberation? Or just foreign meddling. I mean, look at how people view the U.N.'s attempts to moderate American policy - not kindly. Why can't we view U.N. efforts to change us as beneficial attempts at liberating us? Simply because nations like to decide on their own which style of government suits them.

I mean, believe me. I would love for America to be liberated. But I'd rather not have another country decide that fate for us.

I'm having disgruntled thoughts about advent candles right now - as they surprisingly made a reappearance as part of the Christmas services this year. They were, to my joy, deactivated last year and their unheralded reemergence is distressing. I mean, I could understand it if we were Roman, Orthodox, or straight-up Jewish, but no! we're presby-freakin-terians. Didn't we give up visible symbology save for baptism and the Lord's table? Next thing you know, Sundays will become host to kissing crosses, following the tomb of Christ around the sanctuary, and pledging allegiance to the "Christian flag." *sigh*

Talking with Johnny and Sammy at a recent Xmas party got me to thinking. (yeah, yeah, I know it's been awhile - you don't have to tell me twice.) Why don't Americans call the terrorist acts that America has perpetrated "terrorism"? How is it that we can get away with turning the city of Dresden into charcoal? How is it we can incinerate one-hundred thousand non-combatants in a single day flying over Tokyo and not see ourselves in the same light we cast upon terrorists from the Middle East? The answer?

Simply put: we are the good guys.

Honestly, if Iraqis had two months ago erupted a volcano-bomb in downtown Des Moines, killing one third of its inhabitants, we would never forgive the country for its cowardly act of terrorist evil. Yet, historically, ours hands are far from lily-white. We were early pioneers in biological warfare (though not as early as those countries that used the bodies of plague-victims to spread illness). General Sherman practiced terrorism against his own errant countrymen during his march to the sea. We melted an entire city in Germany costing more civilian lives than the A-bomb. We firebombed 67 cities in Japan, costing hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. We used two A-bombs. Our terrorist activities in Vietnam are well-known and common-knowledge by this point.

But we're the good guys. We did it to save lives. To end the war sooner. For expedience's sake.

I'm glad we're the good guys and I can rail against the evil works of other nations without feeling of shame and guilt. I'm glad President Bush's "War on Terrorism" has been properly renamed "The War on the Bad Guys' Terrorism." 'Cause really, I like living where I do and I'd hate to think what would happen to my house if George Bush went to war with America to stamp out oppression and install a democratic government.

From one good guy to another: peace, out, yo.

Vidblog #11: I'm Just a CuddleBug

So my 100,000th visitor since signing up with SiteMeter three years ago came via a Google search for "gross earnings for in-n-out burger" for which I was the number one request, of course. So unfortunately for my visitors who were searching for "Juliet Lowe" (the founder of the Girl Scouts) and the likely disgruntled shopper who was searching for "searssucks.com", you narrowly missed fame. So here's to you Mr. Gross!

Vidblog #10: Hulk Smash!!!
This one took two takes. I would've gone a third, but my eye was already swollen by the end of the second. The first take was flawless. The lighting was good, the sound mix was right, and it didn't go on too long. *sigh* Unfortunately, it got corrupted in transfer. So I had to film a second time. A second time with less spontaneity. A second time without my glasses - they got knocked off into a bush on the first take. A second time with more bruises. A second time with less light (I recommend watching with the lights off). *sigh* Oh well, since I still can't see right out of my right eye, this'll just hafta suffice.

Only, don't ask me to explain my art to you.

So I got a grant yesterday to pursue a book that's interested me for some time. Here's the mock-up cover:

When I stepped on the scale at the doctor's office just after Thanksgiving, the nurse said, "O ho! Looks like somebody ate the pumpkin pie!" The Philistine.

Vidblog #9: Not Anymore
I filmed a vidblog for you all despite my illness but my profeesional advisors counselled that it was too depressing to see me so sick, so instead here's something I shot about a month ago. Just for the heck of it.