You know…people who take their own lives don’t do that because they’re cowards.  They do it because it hurts too much, and they just want to make it stop…

You want to make someone you dumped bleed?  I mean, really, really bleed?  I mean, Profusely…?  Here’s my little tip:  Don’t tell him about all the great sex you’re having now that he’s out of your life.  Don’t bother telling him that your new boyfriend is so much better in the sack then he’ll ever be in his wildest wet dream fantasies.  Don’t tell him how much your new boyfriend understands you so much better then he ever did.  That’s amateur stuff.  Really.  You want to give him a hurt he’ll take to his grave, and hopefully sooner rather then later, just mention in passing some small bit of domesticity that you and your new main squeeze are currently enjoying…

Me:  So I’ll probably be in town in an hour or so…you want to go grab a bite to eat somewhere after I get settled in…

He:  Um…well actually (XXX) and I are about to go grocery shopping in a bit…  Why don’t you call when you get in.  If you want…there’s some good British comedy shows on TV later tonight you can watch at the hotel.  

STAB!  SLASHHHHH!  Bleed!

BleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleedBleed….

Me:  Err…yeah…

And, so on.  If there wasn’t at least one major heart wound it wouldn’t be Christmas…

I’m taking a holiday break with my new car, and we’re driving south, hopefully to enjoy a warm beach somewhere before winter really sets in here in Baltimore.  So posting will be lite and random, but may include some photos.

Enjoy your holidays.  Have fun…eat recklessly…make the ones you love smile…

I’m leaving soon for a holiday road trip to warmer climes, and I have one last huge post to make before I go.  Consider it my end of year sermon.  It’s about morality and what got me wanting to write about it was a post I saw the other day on Jim Burroway’s Box Turtle Bulletin about John Corvino’s new DVD recording of his “What’s Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?”, lecture.  I’ve seen an excerpt of that lecture before it was yanked from YouTube and it looks to be a good one.  But there is more to the moral question then the one he’s asking.

There are three writers whose ideas influenced me greatly in my younger days.  One respectable, and the other two not so much.  The respectable one is Jacob Bronowski, a man whose work I still treasure.  The two not so respectable are Robert Audrey and Ayn Rand, whose work I am sometimes embarrassed to admit reading.  But I have to give them credit all the same for lighting a spark of understanding in me about human nature, society and morality at a point in my life when I needed it really badly.

I found Audrey’s book, African Genesis in a corner of a warehouse I once worked in, wrinkled and discarded, and reading the first page of it…

Not in innocence, and not in Asia was mankind born… 

…I had to take the thing home where I promptly devoured it.  From Audry I gleaned the idea that the forces that move within our consciousness are understandable, and manageable, but only if we seriously study our evolutionary past, the better to understand the bedrock upon which the human identity was formed over vast, almost unthinkable time.  Not to do so would be akin to trying to build a bridge with no understanding of the nature of the materials you’re constructing it from.  Likewise, to construct workable human societies, and moral codes that actually and really benefit us, we need to undertake an almost brutal, unromantic, understanding of ourselves and that means looking also, to the past which brought us forth…

We are not so unique as we would like to believe.  And if man in a time of need seeks deeper knowledge concerning himself, then he must explore those animal horizons from which we have made our quick little march. 

At about the same time, from Rand I got the another completely radical notion: that morality is the one thing you absolutely have to question.  I had heard all my life that the force, the authority, of a moral code comes from its absoluteness, and that to question traditional morality was to destroy it, leaving humanity with no guide, no moral compass, nothing to judge right from wrong.  Rand, for all her faults, and she had many profound ones, showed me that in fact the exact opposite was true.  If morality is a code of conduct we accept in order to guide us toward that which is good for us, and away from that which is not, then it must be, it has to be, constantly questioned and evaluated…judged…against that purpose. 

Are we better off for abiding by this or that moral code…or are we worse off?  Does a society that embraces this or that moral code prosper and thrive…do its people live in peace with one another…is their society stable…prosperous…peaceful…productive…?  At best a morality that does none of this is irrelevant, at worst it actively diminishes our lives, degrades our existence.  It is like teaching us to put poison in our food, and then telling us that our sickness is the result of not putting in enough poison.  Our moral codes must be, have to be right, or they will destroy us.  So as it turns out, morality is the one thing you absolutely positively cannot hold to be above questioning.  It must withstand critical examination.

Ask the children of Marx and Lenin what happens to a society whose model of human nature, and the moral code flowing from it, is flawed.  Ask the shades that walk nights at Gettysburg.  Collectivism?  White Supremacy?  What is a human being?  What is human nature?  What is good for us?  What is harmful?  You have to get those questions right….or you could find yourself living in a nightmare.  A nightmare made all the worse for your not really understanding why it’s happening to you.

Moral issues have preoccupied me for much of my life.  I was raised in a very conservative Baptist household, with a strict sense of right and wrong always in the air.  But there was serious conflict between the two sides of my family tree, and mom’s side, the Baptist side, was always telling me about how wicked dad’s side was, and warning me that I was likely to turn out just as badly as he did unless I embraced their teachings of biblical righteousness completely.  I worried constantly over it when I was young.  But I grew up to be a nature lover and science geek, and gradually felt myself pulled away from my church over its conception of God verses mine.  I’d always loved the God I saw in nature, and never really felt comfortable with the God I read about in the bible, even while I was being constantly reassured that if I didn’t live by the bible I was doomed.  By the time I entered my late teens, I’d left my church and had come finally to an honest understanding of my sexual orientation, and it seemed for a while that I was completely adrift in a world that science revealed to be so wonderful, so absolutely beautiful at a physical level, but which I could make almost no sense of at all at a moral one.  Bronowski, Audrey and Rand gave me permission in those days to think about moral ideas objectively, in the same sense that I pondered the physical world around me as revealed by science, at a time in my life when I was beginning to despair that such a thing was even possible.

So…by the time I got my first computer back in the mid-1980s, and started debating gay rights issues online, I had already been giving the moral side of the issue a lot of thought.  By the time I got my first Internet account, and was able to access the free-for-all then known as Usenet, I’d already been handing out a lot of fire and brimstone about morality, and gay rights…

Me, March 27, 1999, in yet another argument with a bigot, this one named Russ, on alt.politics.homosexuality…

R> My original statement, at which you took such great umbrage, was to
R> suggest that we ought not to have two different sets of moral standards.
R> It is apparent to me that if we say it is wrong for a person to have
R> sexual relations with another person of the same sex — *except* if they
R> are attracted to each other — then we are not saying anything very
R> rigorous at all, are we?

What’s not exactly rigorous here Russ is your attaching moral significance to gender in the first place.  It’s a lot like your insistence
that marriage is between opposite genders…well…because it is.  Real deep thinking there guy.

A homosexual relationship can be loving and devoted, or it can be greedy and manipulative…just as any heterosexual relationship can be. The moral question isn’t in the gender of the individuals, but the nature of their relationship to one another.  Are they loving, kind, sympathetic? Do they trust, and are they trustworthy?  Are they honest with each other, or is one partner, or both, deceptive and manipulative?  There are your moral questions.  The rest is detail

What’s morally wrong, is to lie to people, to use them selfishly for your own gratification and then discard them when you are through.  That’s not only an attack on the person, but an attack on trust and honor…things we are all arguably put at risk, for their demise.  Even worse, is to lie to someone who is in love with you.  If there is a reason that the marriage vows mean something, it is because the breaking of them takes away from us all, things that societies can little do without.  Love and devotion, trust and honor, compassion and sympathy.

The heterosexual who might have situational sex with a member of their own sex…simply for the sake of having a good time with another person who may actually be Gay and strongly drawn to them…is taking advantage of the Gay person’s nature, and their feelings.  The word for that isn’t love, it’s greed.  But the Gay couple that both desires and cherishes one another, is committing no crime, no sin.  They are in fact cherishing the good within each other.  It Is moral for two Gay, or bisexual people of the same sex, to have a sexual relationship, in a way it wouldn’t be if one or both parties were heterosexual.  A same sex relationship between Gay or bisexual people, is inherently more honest, then one that is not between two Gay, or bisexual people.

Here’s the sick joke Russ: by pressuring Gay people into sexual relationships that are against their nature, you and your kind are encouraging deceptive, dishonest, sexual relationships…and you’re doing that in the name of morality.  If anyone is taking the moral standards of the community into the gutter Russ, it’s you.

…one of many such confrontations I enjoyed from 1993 to about 2002 when the quality of the bigotry began to go way down, and I began to get tired of hearing the same goddamned crap rhetoric over and over and over again.  But I can’t tell you how many times over a period of almost a decade, I would start arguing from a moral standpoint with a bigot who would smirkingly assure me that "you don’t want to go there"…that is, since obviously homosexuality is by definition immoral, I, a gay man, didn’t want to be dragging questions of morality into the argument.  To which my reply was usually along the lines of "Oh yes I do."   And when I did, I was never one for mincing words about it.

Because for all the bigots’ chanting about how they’re only acting out of the purest and most righteous of moral intentions, the fact is they are the ones who get cut up the most in a real argument over moral conduct…

October 24, 1998… 

MJ> I wrote that people who saw that float, according to the network
MJ> report, were put in mind of the Shepherd murder. That’s what I wrote.
MJ> You might want to actually read it.

So might ‘others who judge’.  Let’s let them.  Here is just what you wrote, cut and pasted from

Message-ID: <36284435.14253044@news.pacbell.net>

"There was a parade nearby, about the time young Shepherd was being murdered, which featured a float on which a scarecrow was placed, with the placard or something which said – I’m gay. People didn’t appreciate it, in the parade. And it later suggested to them, in hindsight, the way in which Shepherd was left, by his killers."

"about the time young Shepherd was being murdered"  "it later suggested to them, in hindsight"  You were saying that the float could not have been a deliberate and obscene joke made at the expense of a brutal murder, because it happened While he was being killed, not after his body was discovered and the likeness seen by the two bikers who found him to a scarecrow was reported in the news.  You said it was only in Hindsight that the people who saw the float made the connection.  That could only have been categorically true if his body hadn’t yet been discovered.  But the facts were that it had been discovered days before the parade.  Like a holocaust revisionist, you rewrote the order of events, so you could make the following claim:

 "In fact, what was done in that parade had nothing whatsoever to do with what some killers did, elsewhere."

According to local news reports people who saw it were shocked by it, knowing full well what it referred to.  That didn’t happen ‘in hindsight’.  What you did there, in plain sight of everyone here, was rewrite the chronology of events, in order to claim that no association with Matthew Shepard’s murder Could have been intended by the frat.  And you did it so you could claim the fuss about it was all about ‘PC’, not the shocking obsenity of a college homecoming parade float that mocked the vicious kidnapping and torture of a Gay man only days previously.

Why do you bother?  Because your reflex is to excuse hate, that’s why you bother.  To cover it up.  To deny it exists.  The belly laugh here is that you’re accusing Us of not having self control, but the one thoroughly out of control and in the grip of a self destructive vice here is you, and here we can all see it clearly and sickeningly.  Even when it’s obvious to everyone that you’re lying, you can’t stop yourself, you can’t help yourself.  Your mortal enemy is that scarecrow of your own invention, ‘The Gay Activist’ and nothing can prevent you from striking at it…not Truth, not Decency, not Morality and Virtue, not Your Church, not any thought or impulse to preserve your honor and your name.  If you have to ruin everything in you that makes you human, to get hand on the collar of ‘The Gay Activist’, and put your thumb in it’s eye, so be it. 

But do we have to watch?

MJ> Gimme Catholicism . . any day.

Bless me Father for I have sinned…and sinned…and sinned…and sinned…and sinned…and sinned…and sinned…

Jim Burroway has a post up over at Box Turtle Bulletin, about John Corvino’s new DVD recording of his “What’s Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?”, lecture he’s been giving all over the country since 1992.  Like Burroway, I’m glad to see someone directly confronting, at least one half of the moral issue that bigots keep claiming for their own…

It’s a great topic and one that’s rarely explored, which is a shame since the discussion of homosexuality as a moral mode of existence is every bit as vital today as it was when he started fifteen years ago…

Yes.  It is.  But there’s another side to this coin, and it’s one that needs tackling just as much.  Here Burroway gives it a glancing blow…

But as Dr. Corvino points out, the Bible holds a lot of things to be immoral that we no longer condemn with such fervor (for example, divorce, or women speaking in churches or wearing slacks), and the Bible gives explicit approval — and even instruction — on some things that we today consider to be immorally outrageous. The best example of the latter comes from an equally unmistakable passage of Leviticus. This time it’s Leviticus 25:44-46:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The passage is as unmistakably clear as the first one. And if one were to take everything from the Bible in a consistently literal light, then there’s just no way around it: the buying and selling and inheriting of people as chattel slaves is not immoral; it is instead expressly permitted — with rules laid down for its proper execution. But there are very few Christians who are so consistent in their literalism that they would always “approve what the Bible approves and condemn what the Bible condemns” when it comes to slavery. Only Christian Reconstructionists and a few other theonomists are able to sustain this kind of consistency.

So why is it that some people are consistent with literalist interpretations of Scripture where homosexuality is concerned, but when the subject of slavery comes up it’s suddenly all about context, original language and cultural norms? Corvino suggests that we either have to commit ourselves to the idea the authors’s concerns and ours might be very different, and understanding that difference is vital to understanding the text.

Er…no.  Let’s why don’t we, stare that inconsistency in the face and call it for what it is.  And no…it’s not hypocrisy, any more then Paul Cameron’s using his data one way when it suits him, and another when it doesn’t is hypocrisy.  The word we’re looking for here is Mendacity.   How often, how many times, do we have to see this out of both sides of their mouths behavior in anti-gay demagogues before we’re allowed to call it what it is?  They’re not citing the bible, they’re using it like a condom.  Jesus isn’t their lord and savior, he’s their excuse, their scapegoat, nailed to a cross, dying every hour of every day for their cheapshit sins, so they won’t have to look them in the face, and from there to the horrific landscape of human suffering all around them, that has their name written on every heartbroken acre of it.

And never mind the two-faced way they proof text the bible.  A walk through the open sewer most of them call a conscience ought to be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that moral righteousness has anything whatsoever to do with the anti-gay agenda.  Here’s the current darling of the religious right, Huckabee on homosexuality, from a 1992 questionnaire…

“I believe to try to legitimize that which is inherently illegitimate would be a disgraceful act of government…I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle.”

Aberrant?  Aberrant…did he say…?  Aberrant like this…?

One issue likely to get attention is his handling of a sensitive family matter: allegations that one of his sons was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark. It also prompted the local prosecuting attorney— bombarded with complaints generated by a national animal-rights group—to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed. But John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas’s state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee’s chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor’s request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee’s Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer’s intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee’s office and fired. "I’ve lost confidence in your ability to do your job," Bailey says Huckabee told him. One reason Huckabee cited was "I couldn’t get you to help me with my son when I had that problem," according to Bailey. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock, who worked closely with Bailey and called him a "courageous" and "very solid" professional.

And then there’s Huckabee’s pardoning of convicted serial rapist and murderer Wayne Dumond, after the republican noise machine spun the tale that since one of his victims was a distant relative of Bill Clinton,
Dumond had been falsely accused.  Gene Lyons has the rest of the squalid story of Huckabee’s moral righteousness…

Dumond became a right-wing cause celebre. Guy Reel wrote a book entitled “Unequal Justice,” parroting the same bogus claims. Most significantly, Jay Cole, a Fayetteville, Ark., Baptist pastor and pal of Huckabee’s bought into the delusion.

No sooner had Huckabee become governor after Kenneth Starr’s conviction of his Democratic predecessor, Jim Guy Tucker, than he began talking about commuting the presumptively innocent Dumond’s sentence. He clearly expected to be congratulated. Instead, prosecutor Fletcher Long erupted. How could the governor even think of doing that without reading the trial transcript?

Abandoning her anonymity, Ashley Stevens invaded Huckabee’s personal space: “This is how close I was to Wayne Dumond,” she said. “I will never forget his face. And now I don’t want you ever to forget my face.” Previous victims wrote agonized letters begging Huckabee to desist.

Today, Huckabee alibis that nobody could have predicted Dumond’s Missouri crimes. Many people did. Even this column warned that: “Rape’s not a crime of passion; it’s a crime of rage. Violent sex offenders, innumerable case studies show, keep at it until something stops them. If Huckabee doesn’t understand that, he’s got no business getting involved.”

Instead of backing off, Huckabee got tricky. He held an improper closed-door meeting with the parole board, several of whom say they’d felt pressured. Last week, Huckabee’s then-chief counsel, Olan “Butch” Reeves, basically seconded their claims. After the board voted to parole Dumond to Missouri, Huckabee wrote a “Dear Wayne” letter stressing “my desire … that you be released from prison” — the proverbial smoking gun he can’t now rationalize or whine away.

Angry Missouri cops say Dumond’s victims’ severed bra straps were like a calling card. They found his DNA under their fingernails. Huckabee’s latest book claims that Dumond died in prison before coming to trial. In fact, he was convicted of murdering Carol Sue Shields on Nov. 12, 2003.

It should make anyone with a shred of decency left alive within them want to vomit every time one of these gutter crawling creeps starts mouthing off about morality.  Over and over again you see it…the rote declarations of faith, followed by the cheapshit lying, the bellicose digging in of heels rather when their own pathetic failures of moral character are pointed out, and more and more lately, the squalid details of their own personal lives rushing out like an overflowing sewer.  Why do they single out homosexuals?  Because they need someone to point their fingers at, someone to take the spotlight away from their own failed inner character, someone to distract everyone else from the stench of their own rotten conscience, someone to die for their sins, so they won’t have to take responsibility for the mess they’ve made of their own lives, and everyone else’s within arm’s reach.  We have to bleed, so they can be righteous.

It’s good to see attention being given to the moral issue at the heart of the gay rights struggle.  But the morality of homosexuality is only one part of that.  The morality of those who would keep us second class citizens, outcast and vulnerable, is another.  They are taking what should be one of this life’s most perfect joys, that of finding that intimate other, falling in love, body and soul with them, and making a life together, and they are twisting a knife in it, so that they can feel righteous.  There is nothing moral about that.  If that’s not sin, then the word has no meaning.

The argument I frequently hear is that, well, hurtful as their behavior is toward us, they do it in good faith.  No.  The ones who cut us through simple, mistaken ignorance don’t make a big issue out of it.  They’re not on a crusade.  Maybe they don’t have a gay family member, or at any rate one that’s out to them.  Maybe they haven’t had the opportunity for their comfortable moral stereotypes about homosexuality to be challenged.  We all have some crap in our heads, some ignorant or foolish beliefs that in retrospect make you wonder what you were ever thinking to believe such a thing.  The honest person, the moral person, when confronted by a falsehood, by something patently wrong, accepts that they were wrong and acts accordingly.  It’s not about being an uptight self righteous prick either.  As H.L. Mencken once said, "The most expensive thing on this earth is to believe in something that is palpably not true."  You don’t embrace reality to put yourself up on a pedestal, you do it because you don’t want reality to smack you upside the head.  But that’s what morality is for!

No.  The crusaders are Not acting in good faith, and their crusade is as immoral as they come, and it’s long since time that they got that fact pointed out to them by people who are willing to stand up to their plastic self-serving self righteousness and call it for what it is.  A lie.  A cheat.  A fraud.  They deliberately, willfully, hurt innocent people not out of any sense of doing good, but in order to polish their own shit stained vanity.  It is obscene, positively obscene, how long decent, good-hearted gay and lesbian people have been cowed by moral runts who have been doing nothing more righteous then putting a knife into their hearts as a way of buying their own self-respect.  We are not the ones who have to be afraid of arguments over the morality of our conduct.  They are. 

Morality, the hard work of learning the difference between right and wrong across the ages, is a powerful force in the human story.  It is a tool that guides us to the good, and away from the bad.  It is a tool that our enemies renounced long ago because it does not validate their conceits, their evasions, their bigotries.  And every time they open their mouths with lies about us that they know damn well are lies, they tell us so.  It is long past time to look that fact squarely in the face and acknowledge it.  At some point in their lives, reality collided with their prejudices and instead of doing the moral thing, they sold out.  And now morality turns on them, like one of those weapons in fantasy novels, possessed by the spirits of the old warriors who once bore it.  Mike Huckabee.  Larry Craig.  Ted Haggard.  David Vitter.  And all the other right wing moralists who have been caught frolicking in the gutter recently.  The more they yap, yap, yap about morality, the more you see how far away from it they’re running. 

We don’t have to run from it.  There is nothing wrong with us.  There was never anything wrong with us.  We have been taught for so long, for so very, very long, to hate ourselves, to be ashamed, so that a bunch of moral runts would have someone else to point their fingers at, someone else to bear the burden of shame that they’ve been evading all their lives.  You can’t buy a decent, honest, moral life second hand.  You can’t beg, borrow or steal it from your neighbor.  Our hearts are not their stepping stones to heaven.  Our enemies threw morality away, because they couldn’t get it cheap.  Pick it up.  You can afford it more then you know.  The love of same sex lovers, our moments spent in simple straightforward, honest human desire and affection, are genuine and real and righteous and noble and beautiful, and that is why they hate us.  Every time you take your lover’s hand and offer them nothing more or less then what you have, what you are, the best within you, what our enemies see in that is everything they could have had in their own lives, and every noble thing they could have become, that they are not, and that is why they hate us.  Every time you smile into your lover’s eyes, rather then turn away in shame, you win the moral argument.

Via Slog…   Geeze…if you want to see what the end of the world would look like…the island of “Gunkanjima” is probably the place to go…

Off the westernmost coast of Japan, is an island called “Gunkanjima” that is hardly known even to the Japanese. Long ago, the island was nothing more than a small reef. Then in 1810, the chance discovery of coal drastically changed the fate of this reef. As reclamation began, people came to live here, and through coal mining the reef started to expand continuously. Befor long, the reef had grown into an artificial island of one kilometer (three quarters of a mile) in perimeter, with a population of 5300. Looming above the ocean, it appeared a concrete labyrinth of many-storied apartment houses and mining structures built closely together. Seen from the ocean, the silhouette of the island closely resembled a battleship – so, the island came to be called Gunkanjima, or Battleship island.

Eventually, the mines faced an end, and in 1974 the world’s once most densely populated island become totally deserted. The island, after all its inhabitants departed leaving behind their belongings, became an empty shell of a city where all its peopl disappeared overnight, as if by some mysterious act of God.

Wow.  Check out the photos.  Man…my cameras and I could have a grand old time there…

Not really…I support this web site entirely on my own dime. But you had to see this coming… Yes…I’m posting a Mercedes ad here. But it’s so darn cute…I just had to.

I need to find someone to translate that verbiage at the end for me. I can decipher “The E Class” and that’s about it. But notice…it’s a German ad, and yet the song is sung in English.

Via Brad DeLong…

200 proof snark, in the Financial Times. Gideon starts out by noting that "diplomat" Bolton rejects pacta sunt servanda, and goes on from there. The high point is Gideon’s noting that Bolton calls his book Surrender Is Not an Option, and observes that "When it came to Vietnam, surrender was not an option for Bolton because he never got close enough to the enemy to make it feasible…"

The entire Gideon Rachman snark is Here. 

I keep looking for something in the little stack of envelops that greats me at the door when I get home from work.  A pleasant little surprise from warmer climes, like the one I got last December that put a smile on my face that lasted well into the New Year.  I got three Christmas cards in the mail today.  One of them was for the previous occupants of this house.  I’ve owned Casa del Garrett for just over seven years now and I occasionally still get mail for them.  But this card was from an address I’d never seen before in their mail, so I’m guessing it’s from someone they haven’t heard from in a while.  Maybe someone who lost touch and, after searching around online, found an old address they decided to give a try.  I’ll put it back in the mail stream tomorrow with a note about the old owners new address, and hopefully the little card will find its way to the hands it seeks to open it. 

Via Spiegel online… 

Petra Ditches Pedal Boat for Real Swan

Petra’s year-and-a-half love affair with a plastic pedal boat made headlines around the world. Now, though, the black swan from Münster has found herself a real swan to snuggle with, leaving the boat in the lurch.

Swans, Wikipedia tells us, usually mate for life. Divorce, though, the entry goes on, "does sometimes occur, particularly following nesting failure." Which perhaps explains why Petra, the famous black swan from the German town of Münster, has ditched her boyfriend for a new beau. It is, after all, difficult to nest with a giant, plastic pedal boat.

Life is too short to stay hung up on indifferent lovers.  On the other hand…never underestimate the power of love…

Just a few days after having moved into her winter quarters with the pedal boat she fell in love with over a year and a half ago, Petra began making eyes with a newcomer. The male swan is just as white as her previous true love, but he is made of feathers and blood instead of plastic. "She seems to accept him and allows him to eat out of her food dish," a spokeswoman from the Münster zoo, where Petra spends her winters, told the local paper. Nobody, though, seems to know where the new swan came from. "He just showed up…"

Okay…it’s the hopeless romantic in me…but there’s a story somewhere here to be written about a little swan who fell in love with a lifeless hunk of plastic and wood that cold and indifferent fate had cruelly made to resemble her soulmate…and how she nonetheless loved it so wholeheartedly that a spirit began to take root and grow within that drifting lifeless hunk of plastic and wood…until one day it awakened…and embodied as a real swan.  Of course that’s where the new swan came from…

Still, a love affair with Paul would certainly be a step up from an infatuation with a swan-shaped pedal boat. And there is so far no indication that Petra is treating Paul merely as a rebound relationship. They spend much of their time swimming side-by-side. And Petra, it should be noted, isn’t known for her philandering. A number of male swans have attempted to make her acquaintance over the last two year — but Petra has rejected them all.

Perhaps…  Just saying…

Hey guys…let’s all go on a road trip…!

Photo Gallery Number Four, Road Trip, now available for your viewing pleasure in the Photo Gallery.  Also Gallery One, Philadelphia 2004 and Two, Rehoboth Beach 2007 are back up, and Three, The Shadows and Light Sessions, is still there.  I have enough space on the web now that I think I can just keep these galleries online as I keep putting them up, so that people can keep wandering through.

When I get back from my own little holiday road trip later this month, I’m going to start making a push to try and sell some artwork to help raise funds for Morgan Jon Fox’s documentary, This Is What Love In Action Looks Like.  I’ll likely also be offering to sell high resolution signed 11 x 17 prints from any of my photo galleries.  100 percent of the proceeds will go to Morgan to help him finish his documentary.  More on that next month…

Somewhere in this little fragment of a conversation I had last night, is the central difficulty in my life, staring back at me…

Me: …I was never competitive enough so I dropped it after high school.  I wonder sometimes how different my life might have been.  I wanted to be a photographer…

Friend (interrupting): You Are a photographer. 

Via Slog…  Notes from Bishop Akinola’s more righteous and godly Nigeria…

Children are targets of Nigerian witch hunt

Evangelical pastors are helping to create a terrible new campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being abused, abandoned and even murdered while the preachers make money out of the fear of their parents and their communities.

The rainy season is over and the Niger Delta is lush and humid. This southern edge of West Africa, where Nigeria’s wealth pumps out of oil and gas fields to bypass millions of its poorest people, is a restless place. In the small delta state of Akwa Ibom, the tension and the poverty has delivered an opportunity for a new and terrible phenomenon that is leading to the abuse and the murder of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children. And it is being done in the name of Christianity.

Almost everyone goes to church here. Driving through the town of Esit Eket, the rust-streaked signs, tarpaulins hung between trees and posters on boulders, advertise a church for every third or fourth house along the road. Such names as New Testament Assembly, Church of God Mission, Mount Zion Gospel, Glory of God, Brotherhood of the Cross, Redeemed, Apostalistic. Behind the smartly painted doors pastors make a living by ‘deliverances’ – exorcisms – for people beset by witchcraft, something seen to cause anything from divorce, disease, accidents or job losses. With so many churches it’s a competitive market, but by local standards a lucrative one.

But an exploitative situation has now grown into something much more sinister as preachers are turning their attentions to children – naming them as witches. In a maddened state of terror, parents and whole villages turn on the child. They are burnt, poisoned, slashed, chained to trees, buried alive or simply beaten and chased off into the bush.

Some parents scrape together sums needed to pay for a deliverance – sometimes as much as three or four months’ salary for the average working man – although the pastor will explain that the witch might return and a second deliverance will be needed. Even if the parent wants to keep the child, their neighbours may attack it in the street.

This is not just a few cases. This is becoming commonplace. In Esit Eket, up a nameless, puddled-and-potholed path is a concrete shack stuffed to its fetid rafters with roughly made bunk beds. Here, three to a bed like battery chickens, sleep victims of the besuited Christian pastors and their hours-long, late-night services. Ostracised and abandoned, these are the children a whole community believes fervently are witches.

Sam Ikpe-Itauma is one of the few people in this area who does not believe what the evangelical ‘prophets’ are preaching. He opened his house to a few homeless waifs he came across, and now he tries his best to look after 131.

‘The neighbours were not happy with me and tell me "you are supporting witches". This project was an accident, I saw children being abandoned and it was very worrying. I started with three children, then every day it increased up to 15, so we had to open this new place,’ he says. ‘For every maybe five children we see on the streets, we believe one has been killed, although it could be more as neighbours turn a blind eye when a witch child disappears.

This is the country that’s posturing to the world about being more godly and righteous then those liberal American Episcopalians who are rewriting the bible to excuse sexual deviancy. This is what the "conservative" American Episcopalian churches that are aligning themselves with Akinola are buying into so they don’t have to treat their homosexual neighbors as anything other then human garbage.  Without a doubt it’s what the billionaire Ahmanson wants the Anglican Church he’s paying for to look like.  Ahmanson you may recall, is the billionaire "former" Christian Reconstuctionist who once said that stoning homosexuals to death was all part of God’s plan. 

When you start inciting mob religious passions against your neighbors you are walking down a path that leads right into the Pit and what you need to understand about that is that the fall has no speed limit, and there is no bottom to stop you.  It just gets worse and worse and worse until every last shred of human nobility and decency is gone and all that is left is the jungle and screams in the night. 

Mary Sudnad, 10, grimaces as her hair is pulled into corn rows by Agnes, 11, but the scalp just above her forehead is bald and blistered. Mary tells her story fast, in staccato, staring fixedly at the ground.

‘My youngest brother died. The pastor told my mother it was because I was a witch. Three men came to my house. I didn’t know these men. My mother left the house. Left these men. They beat me.’ She pushes her fists under her chin to show how her father lay, stretched out on his stomach on the floor of their hut, watching. After the beating there was a trip to the church for ‘a deliverance’.

A day later there was a walk in the bush with her mother. They picked poisonous ‘asiri’ berries that were made into a draught and forced down Mary’s throat. If that didn’t kill her, her mother warned her, then it would be a barbed-wire hanging. Finally her mother threw boiling water and caustic soda over her head and body, and her father dumped his screaming daughter in a field. Drifting in and out of consciousness, she stayed near the house for a long time before finally slinking off into the bush. Mary was seven. She says she still doesn’t feel safe. She says: ‘My mother doesn’t love me.’ And, finally, a tear streaks down her beautiful face

The righteous men of god in Nigeria are killing children now as witches.  If you thought all that would stop with the sinful wicked devil possessed homosexuals you have never opened a book of human history.  There’s a reason why Jesus said the most important thing after loving God, is loving your neighbor. 

So one of my chain smoking friends is quitting now…and I’m back to my cigars all of a sudden.  Ah well…  Seasonal stress is coming early. 

Wishing will make it so
just keep on wishing and care will go
Dreamers tell us dreams come true
It’s no mistake
Wishing are the dreams we dream when we’re awake
The curtain of night will pass
If you are certain within your heart
So if you wish long enough wish strong enough
You will come to know
Wishing will make it so

No Vera…it doesn’t.  Not at all.

Yes, yes…it looks like New England is getting clobbered right now.  Yesterday NOAA was calling for freezing rain this morning here in Baltimore, but the freeze line had apparently moved north by late last night and right now we’re only getting our usual miserable cold wet drizzle.  Good thing it’s not cold enough for snow though, or we’d be getting socked in too.

P.S.:  I hear you had a very severe cold snap out there recently.  Temperatures plummeted all the way down to…thirty-eight, was it?  It must have been awful having to…you know…put on a jacket or something…

Atrios writes…

A Priest and a Rabbi Walk Into a Bar

Of course what the religion discussion really needs is more humor!

And in the comments Steve Simels replies…

Somedays, it is my profoundest wish that the one true god turns out to be some refrigerator that washed ashore on some remote island in the pacific. And that nobody but the natives there, and there alone, worship.

Visualizing this made me smile.  It gave me the warm fuzzies somehow.  The creator of All That Is embodies one day as a refrigerator and washes ashore on some lost and out of the way island, where it’s venerated by the natives there…and by them alone.  What a completely goofy…and yet evocative image that is…