Reflections, Reflections

My comment from a thread at RWS:

The Abu Grabi pictures are no different than pictures (or behaviors) of people who practice SM, another violent and deranged form of sexuality which only liberals have managed to want to legitimize.

So I find it just a tad ridiculuous when a liberal society which is that deranged sexually has anything to say about some similar prison SM technique.

One more reason why the mind of a liberal stinks so much, the grotesque hypocrisy about the profound problems with its own sexualities.

Need to go, will clarify later - to have an idea what I am referring to, here are previous posts on the subject:

How to Get Away with Murder and Mutilation - Mix it with Sex

Discussion on Prince Harry and SM

See Harry thing for what started the above discussion.

---

This thread developed over at RWS, so I am copying some of the discussion here:

From comments on my site - qkl : "Is there anything a person shouldn't consent to, Andy? "

Andy is that type of guy that when confronted with a suicidal person who wants to jump off the ledge but needs a little push, they can count on Andy for it. Because Andy is just so respectful of "consensual activities."

Andy, apparently you have not grasped that your concept of "consent" is simply horrendous. Horrendous here means: detrimental to society, irresponsible, and regarding certain issues, negligent and criminal.

alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 10:48 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

andy: Willing consent is stupid? Allowing adults to... well... be adults is stupid?

Let us take another example of Andy's deranged mind: suppose we have two adults (in Andy's mind that means they can do anything as long as one of them says yes). Because for Andy, "willing consent" is just a person saying yes. It doesn't matter if the person is totally sick or criminal or deranged, as long as they say yes, Andy thinks it's "willing consent." So person A asks person B to stone them to death in the middle of a shopping mall, because that's what gives them pleasure. Sure enough, Andy here would be delighted to provide all the stones and he would love to watch, knowing just much he was defending freedom, democracy, and liberalism from any horrible govt interference (ohh! those big brother meanies!). If it weren't for Andy someone might actually prevent a brutal act and that lovely concept of "willing consent" that Andy has would be put to scrutiny.

And "allowing" adults to be adults? Oh, you mean allowing you to continue to have attitudes and behaviors detrimental to society, irresponsible, and regarding certain issues, negligent and criminal.

That's your idea of "adulthood."

alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 10:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm cool. Alessandra you are an extremist.

Because I show how much you contribute to irresponsible and destructive attitudes about sexuality, drug addiction, and personal relationships?

Oh the meanie extremist!!! Oh Alessandra talks about responsibility to some crack trash! She talks about having character to a liberal!! Oh the monster. "She" should be monitered.

So, crackhead, you didn't answer my previous questions. Too modest are you? Don't be shy, here's another little "extremist" question for you: is your favorite way to spread AIDS the needle or your dance floor sexual encounters?

alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 11:14 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

andy: "That you somehow associate the crime of chopping up a body after an accidental, heterosexual S&M death with the evils of homosexuality and bisexuality"

Andy, if you could understand what any of the problems in human sexuality are and if you could associate anything about them and if you could understand correctly any association that I make, instead of your repeated distortions, all of that would be a first, wouldn't it?

alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 11:22 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

andy: The only people in my life I've known to have such bizarre opinions regarding sexuality are those that have been sexually abused in the past. I don't know if you have been, but - regardless - seek help, because you're crazy.
andy

Hah, the exact proof of what I am talking about.

So the opinions of people who abuse or who endorse abuse (like you do) are not bizarre, but the only people you think have some bizarre opions are those whom you imagine have been sexually abused.

It's clear that the mentality of sexual abusers is the norm for you, and not bizarre at all.

alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 11:34 am | #

---

Update 2:

Look! Andy's been busy!!

Three men have been arrested on charges of performing castrations on apparently willing participants in a sadomasochistic "dungeon" in a rural house, authorities said Friday.

"It's extremely bizarre," District Attorney Michael Bonfoey said in a telephone interview. "It's incredible the amount of ways that people can find to run afoul of the law."

Bizarre?? Andy, please set this guy straight, hasn't he heard of your mentally healthy concept of "willing consent?"

According to Andy, this DA is crazy because he thinks this is bizarre.

Imagine daring to think that chopping off testicles and other bodily mutilations indicate a deranged sexuality? It's what is normal for liberals!

Hey Dave, you should start monitoring this DA!! Another extremist!!!

From a comment at ACE's:

There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.

LOL

S.C. Approves Seeking Death for Pedophiles -By SEANNA ADCOX

The state Senate on Tuesday endorsed making repeat child rapists eligible for the death penalty, setting aside arguments the move might be unconstitutional.

"What we've got to do today is vote our conviction," said Republican Sen. Larry Martin.

The proposal allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for sex offenders who are convicted twice of raping a child younger than 11.

Currently in South Carolina, murder is the only crime eligible for the death penalty.

The proposal was approved as part of a larger bill that sets minimum sentences and lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders. The bill requires a third reading before moving to the House.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1977 Georgia case involving an adult victim that sentencing someone to death for rape was unconstitutional.

A Louisiana law lets prosecutors seek the death penalty for rapists of children younger than 12, and the Louisiana Supreme Court found it constitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not address the rape of a child.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the statute.

---

Although I do think prevention is where the emphasis should be, if it's a repeat offense, fine with me to have capital punishment.

And that should shut up those liberals who always care more for pedophiles than for the child victims, all the liberals who cry out about how cruel the death penalty is, and all that nonsense. If they think it's so cruel, I say we abuse them every time a child is a victim of a repeat offense and see how long they will keep on with their hypocritical caring for the abusers. I am sorry, I am just tired of seeing how petty and slimy this "concern for human rights of abusers" is. The objection to capital punishment is often nothing more than a profound and vile cowardice, a sentiment that only springs out of a petty privileged position in life.

Not only that, in some cases, I think the death penalty is the only punishment that even begins to address the torture inflicted onto certain children, and we shouldn't need a repetition of the crime in order to justify the death penalty.

To note, given that a lot of parents (and relatives) are repeat rapists of their own children, I make no exception to them either. This myth that child abusers are mostly some goon-looking monster, a total stranger to the child, only serves to hide the horrible reality of intra-family abuse.

And we still don't even begin to address the problem that most child abusers aren't even prosecuted, much less sent to jail for even a week. ( I have a post on this, but I can't find it).

From CNN:

The center was founded by Dr. Matthew Israel, who designed a shock device called a GED, or gradual electronic decelerator. The students, who have few options when it comes to schooling due to behavioral issues or mental disabilities, wear up to five electrodes at a time strapped to their arms and legs. The gadget itself is housed in a fanny pack worn by the student. If a student acts out or becomes violent with staff members, the student gets a two second shock to the skin.

But now, a Long Island, New York, woman is suing the state of New York because her son was shocked at the center. New York sent him to the center in Massachusetts after nobody in New York could treat him properly. Aversion shock therapy is illegal in New York but legal in Massachusetts.

She wants her son, Antwone Nicholson, who has severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), removed from the center. But Dr. Israel says the shock therapy was helping Antwone, just as it has thousands of others before him. Dr. Israel says Antwone's violent episodes dropped from 5,000 a week to none after he was placed on the GED device. Antwone's mom says she didn't think his behavior was too bad. But she signed the paperwork for him to get the treatment. She says she didn't think it would hurt so much.

When I went to the center to interview Dr. Israel, I tried the aversion shock device to gauge its power. I put one electrode on my arm and shocked myself using a remote control. I had been told by the center's employees that it feels like a bee sting or a pin prick. Let me tell you, it hurt far worse than that. Two seconds felt like two minutes. It was like a parade of pins stabbing me in the arm. I could see why students would alter their behavior after feeling that sensation.

CNN lists several user comments, pro and con, this one is correctly con:

I think it's outragous. Sounds like something the church would have used during the inquisition, had it been available, instead of the rack.

I immediately thought of the Inquisition too, and the entire history of abuse in mental institutions (all in the name of science and what-have-you), plus the whole universe of child abuse.

What these grotesque pro-schock-abuse people can't admit is that a child is never born like that, and many abused children start reacting in aggressive and destructive ways to the abuse they are experiencing. And when they react, their garbage of abusive parents try to blame the child as if all the problems came from nowhere.

You know, maybe one way to detect child abuse would be to advertise such a method and then go secretely investigate the so very eager parents who applied to have their child shocked.

For every abusive parent we caught, we would shock the criminal "doctor" that is currently doing this.

Another situation that yields abusive kids is the child that grows up in a home where the dad abuses the mom (or vice-versa), even if the kid is not the direct target of abuse.

This is horrendous and totally reprehensible:

Hollywood activist SEAN PENN has a plastic doll of conservative US columnist ANN COULTER that he likes to abuse when angry. The Oscar-winner actor has hated Coulter ever since she blacklisted his director father LEO PENN in her book TREASON. And he takes out his frustrations with Coulter, who is a best-selling author, lawyer and television pundit, on the Barble-like doll. In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Penn reveals, "We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places."

Excellent comments from ACE thread on it:

Wes:
Wasn't there a story, right after the 2004 elections, that at some Democratic Party get-together the attendees were passing around an Ann Coulter doll and one of the George W. Bush flight-suit "action figures," stripping them naked and posing them sexually?

...What the hell is it with these people, anyway?

...And for that matter, isn't Penn's behavior the way so many serial rapists and murderers get started? First it's disgusting things with dolls, then animals, and then...well, perhaps it's time to send the cadaver dogs out to the Penn place...

---

Me:
Exactly. That is exactly what encourages a lot of people to go from a disturbed representation to the real thing. And all the lack of condemnation he is getting, notice there is no great outcry about it, it just gets interpreted as a green light for a lot of people.

Now can you imagine if some conservative said they had some doll of some lesbiun moron or some black activist woman and they were burning cigarettes into them, raping them?

---

Canelone:

I call it the Clinton Effect. No matter what a repugnant hypocrite or monster you are, no matter how lunatic or horrible you are, if you hold the correct position on a topic, it's forgivable and you'll be defended and protected by the moonbat elites.

You could see it clearly in President Clinton when NOW defended him despite being a serial adulterer, sexual harasser, and liar who abused his marriage for decades.

[...]

Thus, Mr Penn can say something this ghastly and repulsive, something that should send the NOW into screaming fits of sexual abuse, rapist, stalker, monster, and brute... and he'll get a complete pass. The above posters are right, this is psychotic behavior, it's often the precursor to real evil. Assuming he hasn't already done great evil to women.

I don't know why the entire hardware industry has not noticed that laptop computers have such great keyboards. It feels so great to type on them. And desktop computers are odious. I don't care to know why desktop keyboards are not like laptop ones, it needs to be changed, now. Even the sound of laptop keyboards are cute. :-)

We must protect ourselves, we must do everything we can to ward off this evil bunny menace!

Alas, St. Paul has been saved, the fascist painted eggs threat is gone, removed by the bravest of our National guards. Relief. I will be able to sleep tonite.

From some comments at ACE, that started with "V for Vendetta" and then got into a discussion of Hero type movies and characters.

ACE on "V":
This is part of the two problems with the Black-Costumed Man Of Mystery movie. Batman and the Crow also suffered from this problem-- in order to make the hero seem bad-ass and mysterious, the director always seems to revert to turning the hero into a simply unstoppable, undauntable force of nature who is never in any real danger. He simply never comes across a credible threat, an equal to challenge him, or anything, really, that scares him or makes him doubt his own chances of success. He just shows up, kicks ass quickly and efficiently, and actually is so in command of the situation he can take the additional time and effort to pose, preen, soliquilize, and generally just toy with his adversaries.

The problem? It's boring. If the hero is never really in a situation he can't easily handle, where is the excitement or drama? In The Crow, the black-wearing white-Kabuki-make-uped hero (seems a swipe from V, actually) just walked up to a bunch of guys he wanted to kill and... killed them. Only in the first and last executions was there even a fight, and those fights were never versus opponents who posed any sort of credible threat. V is absolutely similar in this regard -- his first appearance features a fight which he wins without even trying, then he just kills three or four people without having to even fight past security -- and his victims are all aged and out of shape and quite plainly not up to taking him on; one is 60 year old woman, for God's sakes -- and his last execution does feature a fight, but, just as in the Crow, you can pound him with automatic gunfire, but he's not going down until he murders someone.

The hero just never shows any fear, so the audience just never feels any fear on his behalf. Contrast this with Indiana Jones, who frequently makes that "Oh dear God" face to let you know "You know, I think I might just actually die" here. For the audience to feel fear on behalf of the hero, he has to feel it himself. And films suffering from the Black-Costumed Man of Mystery syndrome just never seem to realize that.

---

Me:
I thought this was an interesting reaction, but I disagree. Men love this type of all-in-control (specially emotionally), fearless type "hero." That's the exact psychological push-button that the 007 films go for. And men just adore it, they love killing everyone single-handedly, always out-smarting everyone, getting all the sexy women to swoon 24/7 for them and just want nothing else but to jump into the sack with them.

It doesn't bother men that everything in the above is just male-ego pumping to the max, in such levels of absurdity and lack of reality and logic, that it's laughable.

I won't go see V - at least in the theaters - seen the preview, and although it's supposed to be a more "serious" type film than 007, the manichean structure seems exactly the same.

I haven't seen all the Bond movies, I don't think, but from what I remember about them, the only major thing that changed through time was some key traits and behaviors of the main female character.

Seem to remember that in older 007 flicks, the woman was very bimbo-like, sexy, but if she was evil, 007 didn't fall for it (she could be stupid, but not him). But that was when she didn't completely change sides because of how enthralled she became about him. Overall, really a "doll" type person, always succumbing one way or another to the male hero. can't really remember though. In more recent movies, it seems she has acquired more brains and is more of a "partner" type woman, adatping to recent changes about women's roles in society.

---

Canelone: "The thing is, this isn't ego-pumping. It would be if the man was doing these things, but watching some other dude do it doesn't do a damn thing for a man's ego. What we like to see is someone kicking ass and succeeding in a way we can't. Our lives are tough and crappy enough without watching some loser as bad or worse than us stumble around haplessly.

There's nothing attractive about someone barely able to defeat their enemies, in constant concern for their life or even success. That's not heroic, that's like real life and I don't pay 8+ dollars to watch real life."

---

Me:
That happens to me too. I haven't asked other women about how they feel regarding watching a woman character that "kicks a**," but I certainly like it.

You see, there is something more there too that you guys never experienced. A couple of decades ago, if you examined the roles of women in film and tv, you had no "kick a**" heroines. (I know, I know, I bet you can name exceptions). But the sheer bulk of roles had really lame attitudes and behaviors for women. There's the fall apart in a crisis type, who breaks down crying until the brave guy comes and does something. there's the incompetent or not that smart part, that can't figure out a solution and has to rely on other people, there's the "I just go shopping and flirting and serve as sex symbol" type, but who didn't do much either. Can you imagine watching films and tv and seeing one load of stupid messages about women after another? this is what was like watching most of tv in the past.

Specially if you stop to analyze the roles women played in guy hero movies, I mean, they were ridiculuous.

A lot has changed. For example, take Alias. I really liked Alias for lots of reasons (only watched the first two years). JG played a kind of female 007 heroine, very dangerous missions, she's usually alone or almost alone to get things done, she has all the computer little gadgets, AND she goes unarmed to fight against these armed to the nth power goon headquarters, to exactly do what? KICK a lot of body parts of the bad guys. And the plots are totally double-O-seveny, they are full of illogical non-sense, but it's fun and it's cool and it's exciting because of all the suspense build-up. And it's really cool that she exactly does things competently, out-smartingly, strongly, and yet doesn't lose her femininity (one could say, is quite used a sex symbol, but not bimbo-like).

But that's not all, one thing that I find irritating with Alias is that it oscillates between the fantastic and mission impossible 007 genre to a much more dark and serious genre. Can't we choose one and stick to it? Because the more serious part of Alias is really cool too, specially character development, and troubled relationships, conflicts, etc. It has content in that respect too, but that just conflicts totally with the fun, superficial 007 wins everything in the end always, and still has an unruffled tuxedo and perfectly combed hair in the end.

From an entry at Dappled Things.

It's just one of those things that I like, but that I usually don't stop to think about, it's just something I've always felt but don't usually shape into a defined text thought.

I like wooden spoons a lot; the shape, the texture, the feel, and I always associate them with good food. Actually I like most anything that's made out of wood; it has such a nice earthy feeling, specially if it's not overly treated. The only exception being wooden chairs and benches, which are usually totally back breaking - ugh! (at least without a pillow).

This is so cool! I had never known there were so many different interpretations to the Original Sin story such as these! [Click on the link below to read about more.]

Reform and Conservative Judaism's views

The more modern liberal branches of Judaism, such as Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism, which see no "evil" other than the evil actions of human beings, disagree with traditions that identify the serpent with Satan. Eve's only transgression was that she disobeyed God's order. Adam was with her the entire time and at no time stopped her. Therefore, it is incorrect to blame Eve alone. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives. In other words, they had to "leave home" and grow up and live as responsible human beings. If they had never eaten from the forbidden tree, they would never have discovered their capacity to act with free will in the world. God doesn't want human beings who have no choice but to always do what is good and right.


The original sin in Gnosticism

Many Gnostic sects (particularly the Ophites) saw the figure of the serpent as a divine benefactor and liberator of humanity, rather than as Satan, Lucifer, or any other ill-intentioned figure. They held that the world was created by the Demiurge, an imperfect creator who wished to rule it as a tyrant. However, the spirit of Christ interfered by possessing the serpent and telling Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating from this tree allowed Adam and Eve to have free will and thus defy, if need be, their Demiurge creator. Therefore, according to many Gnostics, what Christians call the Fall of Man was really the freeing of humanity's minds and souls.
[too cool!! I had never heard of this!]

The original sin in Islam

The Qur'an recounts the story of Adam and Eve in a similar way to that of the Bible. However, the blame of disobedience is either put squarely on Adam, or both are blamed for the sin; Eve never convinces Adam to sin. Adam and Eve are forgiven by God after they repent.

The idea that the sin propagates to their offspring is categorically refused by the majority of Sunni and Shia muslims, citing ayahs such as: [6:164] "Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another," and [2:286] "On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns." There are minor factions, such as the Qur'an Alone Muslims, who accept a concept of original sin according to which every single human has sinned individually before coming to this earth.

Original sin in Restoration Movement

Most Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement Churches, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and other Congregational Churches of the same origin, reject the notion of original sin, believing only in the sins for which men and women are personally responsible. Adam and Eve did bring sin into the world by introducing disobedience. This spread to further generations in much the same way other ideas spread, thus ensuring an environment that will produce sin in any individual above "The Age of Accountability." Many Restoration movement churches and individuals, however, do believe that Adam's sin made us depraved (that is, with a tendency towards sin) without making us guilty of Adam's sin. Man is predisposed towards sin, but though every person sins, they are not intrinsically forced to sin.

---

The only other previous explanation I had come across regarding the Catholic/Christian mainstream interpretation of original sin was that when early Christians were battling for supremacy against many of the other local religions, and they started to become more and more powerful, they used specific strategies to consolidate their ideological power and legitimacy: in order to de-legitimize many of the pagan, folk religions, in which women had a more positive (and powerful) part to play, they demonized the character of Eve, blaming her (and all other women) with the original sin. Additionally, they took several pagan rituals and incorporated them, giving them a Christian make-over, in order to win over pagan adepts more easily.

From wiki -Predestination and omniscience

Discussion of predestination usually involves consideration of whether God is omniscient, or eternal or atemporal (out of the flow of time in our universe). In terms of these ideas, God may see the past, present and future, so that God effectively knows the future. If God in some sense knows ahead of time what will happen, then events in the universe are effectively predetermined from God's point of view. This is not predestination in itself (although it does involve determinism). Predestination implies that God has something to do with determining ahead of time, what the destiny of creatures will be.

Judaism may accept the possibility that God is atemporal; some forms of Jewish theology teach this virtually as a principle of faith, while other forms of Judaism do not. Jews may use the term omniscience, or preordination as a corollary of omniscience, but normally reject the idea of predestination outright, as a completely foreign idea that has no place in their religion.

Islam traditionally has strong views of predestination similar to some found in Christianity. In Islam, Allah both knows and ordains whatever comes to pass. Muslims believe that God is literally atemporal, eternal and omniscient at the same time.

In philosophy, the relation between foreknowledge and predestination is a central part of Newcomb's paradox.

---

Therefore, I think the only religion (from the group above) that gets predestination correctly is the Jewish one.

Why this topic? Because recently I had to listen to a Christian sermon that I presume concentrated everything I don't like and think it's wrong with much of the core ideas in Christian theology (or philosophy). I'm going to blog on it informally, even though it's not the kind of topic that really yields to being articulated well informally, but it would take too much work otherwise.

The sermon started with God's omnipotence and creation's predestination. This to me is perhaps the most central core idea in Christianity. Cantanima recently had a post about the question of God's omnipotence confronted against barbaric events in the world. Several years ago I came across the same question developped in a play, it's a confrontational dialogue between an atheist Jew and a religious one, and they debate the question of how could have God "allowed" the Holocaust to happen, because that is the only explanation possible for people who believe in an omnipotent God. God willed it. And given how monstrous and barbaric it was, how could a good God inflict and watch all the genocide without interfering, not only just any people, but more ignominiously, his "own, chosen" people? What unimaginable purpose could that have? (getting side-tracked here, but most of these religions all have this "chosen" people idea, that is, our group is better than your group or every other group which reminds me of that putrid little highschool clique mentality)

For anyone who wants to examine the omnipotence problem rationally, it is obvious right off the bat that it is impossible to rationally reconcile the idea that there is a supra-being that has omni-control (that is, a god who controls everything about everything) AND that humans have free will, all simultaneously. Either you are controlled or you are not. In a physical metaphor, either it's gravity that pulls a planet or it's some invisible god that does it. These two ideas: being a controlled puppet and having free choice, both at the same time, are antithetical. Therefore, lots of people came up with all kinds of zany arguments to try to reconcile them, in order not to have their whole religious belief system fall apart on them. (Look up the history of theological/philosophical debates in Christianity for how the famous guys debated the issue)

Whenever I see a huge, mass display of irrational belief, my first question is: what psychological/emotional needs does this belief act on? Why do so many people have the psychological and emotional need for it? Usually the answers to these two questions yield some interesting and insightful answers.

My first observation is that the psychological need for a belief in an omnipotent god recurrs very often in human societies. Second observation, it's not just a trivial psychological need, it occurs in very profound ways. Without much reflection, what I see is that this belief brings comfort to a lot of different types of anxiety that people experience, which can have both useful and harmful consequences. For example, if a person is experiencing hardship, the more they build up their emotional resources and defenses to deal with hardship, the better they will be able to do it. Sometimes, being able to distance oneself from things that are forms of aggression towards our selves can be a valid resource in a distressing situation. Other times, it just amounts to denial of how bad things are and only dulls our ability to face something in order to better act against it, thereby inhibiting us from taking action that could potentially aid in fighting off something bad.

Thirdly, this predetermination credo serves to legitimize a lot of unjust and destructive events (and abuse) in the world, that whole "the poor on Earth will be kings in Heaven" stuff; if you were born a slave, then that's what you were "meant" to be; if you experience lots of horrible hardship, that's just fine and dandy, because that's just what is supposed to happen. That in itself is one of the most viciously foul beliefs in Christianity.

Another related concept is how this omni-predetermination idea and total passivity regarding it is solidified with the idea of eternal life, plus that life on Earth is not very important, because the real important part will happen in Heaven. I think this latter idea can be used in very destructive ways, because it can be used to make people become and remain insensitive to so much that is wrong in the world (the whole "religion is the opium of the masses" stuff). I consider life on Earth extremely important, and careless, uncaring, aloof, alienated people are always contributing to making the world a horrible place, often by negligence and disinterest, by lack of commitment, by petty selfishness.

I also see that Christians love the idea of "original sin," because they basically interpret it as a free pass to always sin. You know, "even before I was born, I already had sin, additionally I'm human, so it means I'm always sinning, so what's there to do about it?" Which is why Christianity puts so much emphasis on the forgiveness of sins, not on not sinning in the first place. From the little I know about historic changes in messages and sermons in Christianity, this appears to me as a recent development. In older times, clergy were quite fiery and threatening in inculcating the idea that people shouldn't sin, to the point that it was completely neurotic ( profoundly intimidatory and apocalyptic) and mostly a manipulation of lots of fears and guilts, with very little emphasis on positive emotions and attitudes.

In a conversation I recently had where I talked about acting to ensure people don't sin in the first place, the Christian group I was with got uncomfortable and dismayed. "What do you mean not sin in the first place? It's so much better to sin and ask to be forgiven, with or without repentance. " Evidently, they didn't explicitly talk like this, but when you examined their attitudes and behaviors, beneath a lot of excuses, it's what it amounted to.

Becase I see there is a lot of stress on Christians to forgive sins, but not so much to refrain from sinning, much less, heaven forbid, that you actually take action to set others straight. This fluffiness regarding character issues and taking action (specially out in the world) is part of this whole cafeteria church/religion phenomenon that we are watching. People pick one or two things they like about some religion, specially if it doesn't interfere with their lack of character and all the crap they do in life, and, voilà, they are very happy in being so "religious." It is a yuppy, frivolous, consumer-type attitude to religion.

On the bright side, one thing that I like that I have come across which I think is a very modern approach in Christianity is the whole idea of a relationship with God and working to build such a relationship. Now, it's not the idea itself I'm referring to, I'm sure one could argue that's as old as the religion itself, but it's more of how it's worded and approached, this whole "nice relationship" with God, who is stressed as a God of love, instead of a God of punishment and fear.

Just found out something really sordid about V for Vendetta. From ACE:

Perhaps the most foul part of the movie conceptually is that V tortured Evie over the space of days if not weeks, ostensibly trying to get her to reach the place were he is at. V repeated shoves Evie's head into a toilet (it is quite a clear toilet, shot from inside the bowl, a trick which Sin City already exhausted). She is enraged when she discovers that it was V and not the State who tortured her, but this rage quickly turns to love. This is vomitously foul.

You know what I find interesting? This sounds like a perfect example of a phenomena that I started witnessing 10-15 years ago and just gets stronger and stronger. With the full thrust of the pro-homo political movement, I started to see that guys who had always been extremely sexist and endorsed all kinds of psychological violence with sex towards women, all of a sudden were turned into these profound pro-homo advocates. They continued to treat women like trash and push for all kinds of violation of rights of women to respect, dignity, safety, etc, in pornography, in prostitution, were in denial of abuse and violence - but they would have fits and get totally incensed about any little anti-homosexual thing. Homosexuals were *the* victims of the world for them. Meanwhile if you examined their attitudes and behaviours about tons of violence in the world and millions of other types of victims and all these pro-homos could care less.

When I first started noticing this, it puzzled me, because it seemed so illogical, but then I began to understand what was going on. Most men who are very pro-homo, specially if they are very sexist and have such crappy sexuality attitudes and values about women, see in the pro-homo credo a way to legitimize all their crap about sex. Basically what pro-homosexuality says is that no one should criticize anything about sexuality, no one should interfere about any sexual behaviour, no one needs to discern and hold accountable how neurotic, violent, destructive so much of human sexuality is, and that obviously transcends into heterosexuality. However, this is just what people who have a sexist and neurotic mind about sexuality want. Not to be criticized and, on top of it, to put themselves on a high horse about their imagined moral loftiness on sexuality.

All of a sudden, a concept that equated pro-homosexuality with defense of freedom and being sexually enlightened became one of the cards that people slapped on the table as a part of their personal armory in daily sexuality battles; a way to get on that my-sexuality-is-better-than-your-sexuality highhorse. Any criticism to homosexuality was henceforth framed as “prude, backwards, repressive ignorance.”

And by the descriptions above, this movie is another great example. The torture of a woman is not framed as bad, it's unremarkable, it's not nazi-like. Not only that, as mentioned above, this issue gets viciously foul, because afterwards she falls for the guy who tortured her. You know what this also reminds me of on a tangent? Attitudes regarding women who were raped and then forced to marry the rapist, or abused children who were attacked for not loving their abusive parents. I also see parallels to cult indoctrination, as mentioned, which can be extremely violent and damaging. It also reminds me of Greek culture, where women were considered trash and the self-obsessed homo sex was the valued sexuality of the day. (isn't one of the writers a homo, btw?)

Poignantly, there is almost no mention whatsoever of this torture as a problem in most of the reviews. But a bunch of critics join in the “oh but it’s such a progressive movie because it speaks for the only victims in society," which we all know, are homosexuals.

And isn’t the following just classic Hollywood too?

“Larry Wachowski has abandoned his wife of nine years - childhood sweetheart Thea - to pursue a sado-masochistic relationship with a dominatrix”

MatrixBack Mountain.

How Romans multiplied numbers using those awfully cumbersome Roman numerals!!

Actually they had sun-powered calculators

Well, not really ;-) but it worked!

Curious trivia.

Interesting. From a thread about how much St.Augustine is misconstrued today - at Cantanima's.

My comment on this thread about a Church controversy regarding a past indigenous massacre (Sand Creek):

I think that most people's attutides towards massacres (and genocide) of indigenous peoples (or otherwise cultural obliteration) usually vary between flippant and insensitive.

I don't think harping on guilt for past acts that can't be changed is very useful, but remembrance along with teaching of what happened is important.

People who feel quite bothered by the horrible history against indigenous peoples can also take action by getting involved with organisations that help indigenous communities or individuals that are alive today.

See Diana's picture that prompted the Fug review below :-)

It felt good at the time, but in retrospect, Diana Ross will regret screaming at her seamstress, "You're out of tulle? How are you OUT of TULLE? A woman can't come floating across dry ice without tulle! People don't pay to see Diana Ross rise up from the mist like a divine eggplant of destiny in some dull satin thing! They want to see her looking like a mountain of royal glory dipped in raspberry dream spice! And as Lionel Richie always told me, THERE IS NO RASPBERRY DREAM SPICE WITHOUT TULLE. So I don't care if you have to sew some ratty-ass tutus onto a bedskirt. I don't care if you have to skin Bobby Trendy to do it. MAKE IT HAPPEN."

DOL (dying of laughter here)... divine eggplant !!! :-)))

And they reproduced so well that dictatorial prima-donna enraged arrogance when talking to other people (whom they always treat in the most horrible way).

(2006-03-22) — Microsoft today announced it would speed the launch of its Windows 3rd Millenium Edition operating system (code named 3ME) making it available in stores “probably some time in 2007,” rather than the scheduled release date of November 2999.

OMG!!! Aren't they swift?? Efficient?? Accurate?? It's Microsoft!

Read the whole thing, it's great. Another lovely release by Ott.

We are still waiting for you people to destroy Google, by the way. :-P

From a comment thread Cantanima's.

"The Roman Empire was pretty great and enlightened. However, due to mismanagement and the rise of superstitious, sexually repressed, fundamentalist Christianity, it was stifled and fell. There followed a thousand years of 'Dark Ages,' during which the biggest innovation was The Black Death. Then came the Renaissance, when people celebrated their open-minded pagan roots and cast off the shackles of Christianity. From then on, everything was mostly happy, save for a continuing rear-guard action fought by those religious nuts, such as the Inquisition, the Galileo affair, or the Scopes Monkey Trial. Thankfully, science and sexual liberation has reigned triumphant, thanks to people like Voltaire, The Marquis De Sade, and Carl Sagan. The end."

;-)

I actually want to read a bit of Voltaire, the little I know of him makes me curious.

My comment at "V for Vendetta or Very Stupid" post at RightWingSparkle.

The left needs to use these extreme charicatures of rightwingers in order to lie to itself about the horrible problems that exist in a liberal society.

"V for Vendetta" lefties will not talk about how many liberals abuse children, rape women, batter and prostitute, nor about how violent or unethical non-heterosexuals are, nor how diseased liberal sexuality is - just take a look at the bulk of pornography and you will see millions of examples of neurotic, debasing, violent sexual attitudes and behaviors - all liberal.

Evidently, liberals are too cowardly to face and deal with how much the liberal kingdom stinks. They need to fool themselves that "the state" is what constitutes the only threat to human rights in society, since they are too privileged and dehumanized to care about any other type of mass civil violence, specially when a good deal of the perpetrators are liberals.

Andy left a comment for this post on "Exonerating homosexual perpetrators of violence."

Andy: Also, you have an extremely warped view of GLBT people. I know thousands, and we are certainly less violent than any other subgroup.

Well, what do you know? A homo that thinks he (and the homo population) are better, read less violent, than all other groups. So what else is new with these dishonest, self-obsessive people?

I think it is interesting to examine not only what pro-homos think they "know," but what is the basis for what consitutes their worldview and so-called "knowledge." In other words, how does Andy "know" what he thinks he knows?

For example, how does Andy know what the entire homo population is like, we wonder? "I know thousands," is his answer, and it stops there. Does Andy know what these thousands of people do 24 hours a day, every year of their lives? Can he attest for every form of abuse, harassment, insult, lack of character that they have perpetrated all their lives? Is it possible for a human being to know everything there is to know about thousands of people? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?

Obviously, not. But this is one more example of how irrational pro-homos are. Not only reality simply does not matter to them, it actually bothers them a lot.

How much does Andy know about people? Since Andy knows thousands of people (both heterosexual or non-heterosexual), can he tell us with certainty who among these thousands of people is abusing children? Or who is harrassing an adult? Who is consuming pornography? Who is engaging in the prostitution industry? Who is corrupt, dishonest, cheating? Or who has done these and other things in the past? How can he know everything that is going on in the lives of everyone he has met? Simple, he can't. What he has is a highly superficial, skewed perception (read cognitive selective) view of all these homos he purports to "know."

Evidently Andy doesn't question his own illogical worldview, because having a simplistic, self-serving, idealized version of reality satifies his dysfunctional ego and pro-homo obsession. Such a distorted version of reality is created and maintained in pro-homos' minds in place of any information about reality (which is not that cute).

This is another fanatical aspect of how pro-homos view homosexuals, idealized to the extreme, and consequently it is a very warped view. In addition, anyone who disagrees with pro-homos and is able to take reality into account and who does not idealize homosexuals in a fanatical way is deemed by pro-homos as having a "warped" understanding of homosexuals.

One other interesting observation about the pro-homo mind is that it projects onto others many of its own problems and dysfunctions, being in total denial about themselves. Pro-homos constantly project onto other people several of their own mental/psychological problems, as in the above example of who has a "warped" view of homos.

Albert Einstein's name has become synonymous with genius. Einstein didn't drive a car, so he had a chauffer to take him from place to place. Once while on a lecture tour speaking about his theory of relativity, Einstein's chauffer said: "Dr. Einstein, I've heard your lecture on relativity so often now, I believe I could give it myself." "Well, why don't you do it," said the brilliant scientist. "The people at the next university have never seen me and they won't know who I am. You put on my clothes and I'll wear your uniform and cap. You introduce me as your chauffer and I'll introduce you as Dr. Einstein."

Everything went according to plan. The chauffer delivered the speech flawlessly. Einstein was sitting in the back of the lecture hall, enjoying it immensely. Then, something happened neither the chauffer nor Einstein had expected. With some time left to spare, a question-and-answer period was allowed that precipitated a complicated, technical question from a mathematics professor that involved mathematical formulas the chauffer couldn't possibly understand. Lacking the intellectual knowledge to get out of the jam, the chauffer, nonetheless, responded with considerable practical wisdom, saying: "Sir, the answer to your question is so simple I can't believe you asked me to answer it. Anybody can answer that question. And to prove my point, I'm going to have my chauffer come up and address it for you!"

:-)

I am applying for a job and the guy asks me to send in a handwritten motivation/cover letter. This makes me totally uneasy, like, what is he after? I hate this, I hate people wanting to "analyze" you regarding something without you having any control of it.

I've had a handwriting expert look at my handwriting a long time ago and he said some pretty interesting things, general things, but nevertheless correct, regarding how I felt about myself and some personality traits at the time. But this was no job interview dweeb.

What spooks me is that I imagine there are very few people who are actually knowleageable on handwriting and most others are simply self-dellusional types, these obsessive morons with really loony ideas about one handwriting trait or another. Or they must be the cluelessly dogmatic types: anyone who writes their "A" like so, must be a person that arrives late for work everyday and I must be really smart to deduce this just by looking at your letter "A." There goes my chance for the job.

Or they must be like some of those astrology people, who obsess about knowing your sign or their minds can't process information about you, they can't find a way to understanding you without putting you in a pre-determined, simplistic mold. "What, what, WHAT is your sign, I have to know what sign you are! If you don't tell me your sign, I'm freaking out! " I hate people who "believe" in astrology, as if it were some scientific domain.

Anyways, don't like any of it. And the scanner is not working properly, so that only means that I will have to go somewhere tomorrow just to scan the stupid letter. It should be against the law. :-/

I would like an alarm clock that could turn time back.

It would wake you up and you would say: "Not now, I would like to sleep for 45 more minutes. "

And it would reply, "No, problem, 45 minutes coming up." And the alarm clock would just wind time backwards 45 minutes so that you could sleep more but still wake up as early as ever.

Kind of like a Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy gadget, isn't it?

I bet I would get richer than Bill Gates ;-)

Well, a lot of material, to start with. Do you know why there are so many drapes and folds in a toga (yes, that white "sheet" that Romans used to losely wrap themselves with)?

A toga had no less than 18-20 feet in length! And Romans had a special way of wrapping it around them so that it enclosed the left side and arm, and left the right arm free. Roman men used the toga when they went to parade outside the home, and it was worn over a tunic, their homewear.



The toga was made from wool, and the tunic, linen. I wonder how rough that wool was? I had always imagined the toga as being made from another lighter material, since we can see so many small folds in the Roman statues. Surely, it couldn't have been a very thick wool, because thick wool doesn't ply into multiple folds like that.

Look at those partially covered legs!! too funny!

The toga of an ordinary citizen, like his tunic, was the natural color of the wool from which it was made, and varied in texture according to the quality of the wool. It was called toga pura (plain toga), or toga virilis (man's toga), or toga libera (free toga). A dazzling brilliance could be given to a garment with a preparation of fuller's chalk, and one so treated was called toga candida (white toga). All men running for office all wore this toga. Hence, office seekers today are called candidates. [another cool etymology bit! :-) ]

Curule (high-ranking) magistrates, censors, and dictators wore the toga praetexta, with a border of purple. It was also worn by boys and by the chief officials of free towns and colonies. The border was woven or sewed on the curved edge.

The toga picta (crimson, embroidered in gold), was worn in triumphal processions by victorious generals, and later by emperors. [you have seen this in movies :-) ]

And in case you are wondering, they didn't go nakkid underneath their togas and tunics, Romans who were part of the senate wore purple heart boxer shorts underneath! (LOL ;-) Actually, they wore a loincloth.

Styles of Hair and Beards

In early times Romans wore long hair and full beards. According to Varro, professional barbers first came to Rome in 300 BC, but razors and shears were used before the beginning of history. Citizens of wealth and position had their hair and beards kept in order by their own slaves. Slaves who were skillful barbers brought good prices. Men of the middle class went to public barbershops, which became gathering places for idlers and gossips. The very poor found it cheap and easy to go unshaven. But in all periods, hair and beard were allowed to grow as a sign of sorrow as much a part of mourning as mourning clothes.

Different styles of hair and beard varied with the age of the man and the period. The hairs of children (boys and girls) were allowed to grow their hair long and hang around the neck and shoulders. When a boy became a man, he had to cut off his locks; sometimes with great formality. During the Empire they were often made an offering to some god. In classical times, young men wore close-clipped beards. Mature men were clean-shaven and wore their hair short. Most statues that have survived show beardless men until well into the 2nd century of our era. But when Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138) wore a beard, full beards became fashionable.

Where does the word "maharajah" come from?

Magnus rex!! Well, it doesn't come from latin, but it has the same roots! Isn't that cool? Reg/rag = diriger/gouverner: en latin, rex/regis; en hindoustani, rajah; all are words that mean "king" or "roi/rey/rei" (celui qui dirige). Et un maha-rajah est un "grand roi" (magnus rex).

L'indo-européen n'a jamais été une "langue parlée" véritable: c'est une langue "virtuelle" reconstruite par les savants au XIXe siècle, pour expliquer la parenté des langues de cette région de la planète. En fait, c'est un inventaire des racines (see post below). Jacques Gaillard

The Devine existence of continual indiscriminant ‘loving and ‘giving’ of the River to all living creatures on earth, which explains one of the most fundamental Christian beliefs today.

Mother river, (Ma rika, Ma Rea, Maria) in Classical times Rea, is the continual giver of life sustaining water that gives birth to all Life on Earth.

In Classical times Rea gives birth to Zeus, in Christianity Maria ( Ma Ria ) gives birth to Christ –Jihova that is Life itself on Earth.

I love discovering the etymology of words and expressions. Here are a few ancient roots from Sanskrit, that metamorphosed into various European languages:

Take the prefixes "un and a" denoting without or opposite and they are common to Indian and English languages and come from Sanskrit origins. Deva, Dyut, Dhola, Divas all derive from the original meaning bright and thus also day, dios, Zeus. Pitru gives rise to pater, father; Matru to mother; Bhratru to brother and fraternal; Dohitru to daughter. Devapitru – the godfather becomes Zeuspater and then Jupiter. Timir the darkness is to be feared and gives rise to timid and timorous. Janma, Janani are birth and mother who gives birth and from it stem gene, genesis, generate. Mrut, Mrutyu are dead and death and hence mortis, mortal, mortality. Sarpa is to slide or slither like a snake, so serpent and serpentine. Maans gives rise to old High German maz, Icelandic matr, then to meat meaning edible flesh. Madhu, Madhur are honey and sweet and from them we get mead and mellitus. Gnana is the basis of spelling knowledge with a K, and hence gnosis, Gnostic and ignorant. Agni is fire and hence the English words ignite, ignition, igneous. Raaj is rule and from it come regis, reign, royal, regina, regal, ragnar. Guru is preceptor but also heavy and hence urdu word gurur-pride, but also in English we have grave, gravid, gravity. Sthaan, Sthit, Sthiti meaning position, stable and condition, give rise to stand, stance, state, static. Vijaya becomes vici and then victory and invincible. Yoga, Yukta give yoke and Bandha, Bandhan are the root of bind, bound, boundary, bond and binding. Pada gives root to podia, podiatry, peddle, pedlar. Graha, Grahas meaning hold or planet and crocodile also give grasp.

Aksha generates ocular and Naas transforms to nose and nasal. Danta is the origin of dental, dentine and dent. Kanthha branches out into cant, chant cantor, canticle. Kapaala most likely changes to Greek kephalos and then cephalic.

Manu the first person gives us man, manual, manhood. Ada morphs to Latin edere, then German essen and to English eat. The relationship is manifest in humanity's faculty of color vision. Palit in Sanskrit is gray and from it comes pale and pallid. Rudra is red and from it comes rubro, ruby and ultimately red. Shweta is white and in Russian Svet is bright and hence Svetlana.

The interchangeability and derivational history of languages is marked by the mileposts of S metamorphosing to H as in Soma to Homa and J changing to Y and H. The Icelandic and Old English words for white are Hvitr and Hwit derived from the Sanskrit by replacing S by H and ultimately leading to white. Equally good is the origin of the names for numbers. Dwi, Tri, Chatur, Pancha, Shat, Sapta, Ashta, Nava, Dasha become Zwei, Trei etc. and end up as two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten but going through Tetra, Penta, Hexa, Hepta or Septa, Octa, Nano, Deca.

I wonder when the Pancha/Penta morphed or was substituted by the Cinq type word?

From wiki:

From latin quinque, from PIE ( Proto-Indo-European) penkwe, cognate with Spanish cinco, English five.

So apparently penkwe generated quinque, by having the "p" turn into a "q" and then a "ch/c" sound for the newer latin derived languages. And "penkwe" seems to have had another route as well: pancha/penta, preserving the initial "p" sound.

One thing that really sickens me is how nazi-inhumane most people are regarding (non-homosexual) kids who are bullied in school, often enough in seriously damaging ways. However, practically the only thing one hears again and again regarding bullying is the homo propaganda about how "non-safe" homo adolescents are in school, while the profound lack of safety of numerous other kids is a total non-issue for society. Insults against homosexual teenagers is about the only form of bullying that we are told deserves our attention and empathy, while we continue to live in a brutal school-environment society for so many other children.

I don't think it would be hard to start a network of alliance groups that would encourage and permit kids to easily take action against bullies in their school. We also need to put in place measures where kids could denounce teachers and administrators that acted in neglect or in collusion with bullies. Although I am not really very aware of what is being put in place on a national and international level regarding this horrible problem in schools, from headlines and other bits of information, it seems like what we have right now are "drops in the ocean" type of initiatives. Better than nothing, no doubt, but so paltry. So little, so late.

I am writing on this subject because I just came upon this really frightening development regarding school bullying:

A Florida attorney who calls himself an "anti-video game activist" is raising concerns about a new video game that he says is nothing more than a "Columbine simulator."

Miami attorney Jack Thompson says "Bully" is a new action game set in a virtual reform school. The game is being produced by Take2/Rockstar, the same company that released the series of violent "Grand Theft Auto" video games. According to Thompson, Take2 -- in releasing "Bully" -- is set to release "a violent video game that is, in effect, a Columbine simulator in every sense."

The attorney explains the game's scenario. "It's a game set in a virtual school [Bullworth Academy] in which the hero is a bully who bludgeons his classmates and his teachers with slingshots, body slams, fists, and sticking their heads in toilets, as well as beating them with bats." The concept, he says, is "off-the-scale reckless" in light of what happened at a Colorado school in April 1999. "Seven years ago, everybody who was paying attention learned that the Columbine school massacre was at the hands of kids who had been bullied, who then turned around -- inappropriately, obviously -- and criminally bullied others." Thompson implies he is not the only one concerned about the new video game.

"All the bullying experts on both sides of the Atlantic who are aware of this game are bracing for more bullying and more violence in the schools," he says, "because Take2/Rockstar Games is going to be marketing this game directly to children. This is very troubling and very much poses a public safety hazard." The attorney says he is pleased the Miami-Dade School Board has passed a resolution urging retailers not to sell the game to minors. The game, which the manufacturer says will be released this Spring, has not yet received a rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). [Chad Groening]

Where is the outrage about this? Where are the concerned parents? The politicians and government agencies that are supposed to be working for the public? Where are the educators and teachers, who are mostly all garbage of pro-homos now?

Nowhere. Let all the vulnerable kids be sadistically tormented and battered, for all these people care. I'm sure they are too busy clapping at homos in Pride Parades to think about anything else.


Second point:

'All the bullying experts on both sides of the Atlantic who are aware of this game are bracing for more bullying and more violence in the schools," he says, "because Take2/Rockstar Games is going to be marketing this game directly to children'

And what difference for the better would it make if it were marketed for adults and not directly to children?

Another thing that is really dysfunctional in the American worldview is that it proposes the false idea that only kids can act on suggestion of violence. This is to be completely in denial of human psychology. If you start pumping bullying messages to adults, some of them will be influenced and act on it. Just like sexual violence messages.

It's not only the message that gives the idea depicting the act of violence, but what has the most influence, usually, is the encouragement embued in the message. The latter acts as a positive reinforcement for these people which can lead to abusive actions. The more encouragement they perceive in their sub-culture/surroundings/peers/society, the more that legitimizes their desires and subsequent decisions to perpetrate violence.

From Dr.Helen: Nicholas Cummings and Rogers Wright, authors of Destructive Trends in Mental Health,talk about the APA's attempt to silence those who disagree with their positions:

When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."

'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda," said Cummings. "Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves.

Perhaps the APA should turn the mirror on itself when it comes to being intolerant and closed-minded. APA articles such as this one claim that Conservatives have an intolerance for ambiguity -- but isn't intolerance of ambiguity just what the APA is engaging in on the issue of homosexuality? Isn't it extreme to go from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) prior to 1973 to claiming that NARTH has no right to help those who want to change their sexual orientation to do so? Should we really trust an institution that swings to such extremes when it comes to psychological issues, and yet insists that it is right in whatever position it takes?

If clients want to change their sexual orientation, shouldn't they be able to make that choice just like the clients who embrace being gay or heterosexual? (How would the APA act if someone else were trying to shut down therapists who assisted formerly "straight" clients with getting in touch with their "gay" feelings?) Is the appearance of political correctness so entrenched in the APA that they would violate their own ethical code of client autonomy, self-determination or diversity?

I guess the answer to the last question is "Yes."

Dr.Helen: Please help me in my support of the book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health. I have purchased several copies and hope that others will too--give them to your favorite therapist or mental health professional or read them yourself. The book is chock full of great information on political correctness with chapters ranging from "The Psychology of Victimhood" to "The Dumbing Down of Psychology."

---

Great post. However, it's really bizarre given what an obsessive, stupid pro-homo her husband is (Instapundit). And he's disgusting with a lot of other sexuality issues, such as porn, etc.

Nevertheless, it is a moment to celebrate. These horrible results have been taking form and occurring in more dispersed ways ever since the 80s and 90s, but only now they are getting unavoidably glaring. If you dared to criticize these garbage of people before, you were drowned out by the fanatical pro-homo mass choir (anyone remember what happened to Dr. Laura?). However, as they get more and more extreme and the terrible incongruent consequences become evermore blatant, at least more people will start to be bothered by certain aspects of pro-homosexuality fanatism. Then they will begin to take notice, they will be forced to start reflecting, and they will finally come to see how dysfunctional and fanatical pro-homosexual politics are, even if there was wide evidence 10, 15 years ago. Unfortunately, society at large is largely willingly in denial about it all, since fanatism always finds it easy to put blinders on an privileged, petulant, and irresponsible society.

We can forecast that pro-homos will continue to take over more and more powerful positions in society, but at least this will result in making them show their profound Animal Farm pig mentality in such striking ways that social denial about it will require increasing intellectual fraud on the part of those involved. And that is probably the only thing that will start pressuring society to be less in denial. The victims of all kinds of psychological and sexual violence perpetrated by homosexuals and bisexuals have basically no voice as it is.

Joining them in yet another stinging critique of the mental-health profession was psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. In his talk entitled "Judicial Abuse of Scientific Literature on Homosexuality by the American Mental Health Professional Organizations," Satinover offered a long, elaborately referenced description of ethics breaches in the recent legal cases that have set the stage for groundbreaking changes in family-law policy.

Satinover said the mental-health associations had allowed themselves to be used by gay activists who distorted the research findings to serve their own socio-political aims. This distortion of the science, he said, has been so great that it is "appalling beyond imagination."

How long we will have to wait for the dozens of books and articles that correctly show how psychologically violent and degenerate are the minds of homosexual and bisexual women regarding sexual harassment of other women, for example? One of many topics that rests a total taboo in society, thanks to pro-homos (in psychology, academia, and politicks). Another topic that media doesn't dare to talk about is how much homosexuals and bisexuals engage in prostitution. And how domestically violent homosexual relationships are, and...

An Internet chat room that streamed video of live child molestations has been shut down, and 27 people have been charged with online child pornography offenses, federal authorities said Wednesday.

There are only some very simple words here: DEATH PENALTY FOR ALL CAUGHT.

Simple.

Get these monsters off our planet, NOW.

And if this is one case in the US, can you imagine how widespread this type of abuse is in third world countries, where police hardly ever act regarding child sexual abuse?

And, even after all of this is happening on a daily basis, globally, Google still refuses to hand over data to the government regarding child pornography.

You are some garbage of people, Google.

When I was writing a few comments at Ace's about pro-homosexual propaganda tactics and how they manipulate language, specially the most intensely used term "gay" for homosexual, it also occurred to me that "same-sex" marriage is a very sanitized term. "Same-sex" marriage is something that two brothers could do; simply marry for tax benefits, as critics have pointed out. Homo activists are not trying to legitimize "same-sex" marriage, they are trying to normalize homosexual marriage. So why don't they call it "homosexual" marriage?

Ironically, many of the most widely enforced and adopted homo propaganda words serve to erase (or to euphemize) the homosexual aspect of the term. It may be ironical, but it is a classic propaganda tactic to make negative concepts acceptable (such as "man-boy love" for homosexual child abuse and so many other examples).

We need to ask, if the word "homosexual" has existed for ages, and since it is the perfectly apt adjective for homosexuality, why doesn't the media currently use "homosexual" or "homosexual marriage" most of the time? Why has the term "gay" been imposed as the word to describe homosexuality by homo activists?

To institute words to beautify and to sanitize the idea of homosexuality, specially the male type, is one of the prime objectives of homo propaganda. Most pro-homos practically shun the word "homosexual" whenever possible in favor of the word "gay." And it is interesting to note that homo activitsts insist on saying "gay and lesbian" instead of simply "homosexual." The latter is shorter, simpler, and more practical to write. Nevertheless, it is clear that homo activists want to pound "gay and lesbian" into people's mind, using the same techniques as commercial branding of trademarks.

Practically only one other word aside from "gay" has been taken up by homo activists: "queer." However, only homo activists use the word "queer," which veers into signifying "weird," and it is negative, which could explain why it hasn't gained currency in the current pro-homosexual language war. "Gay," on the other hand, is definitely associated with the original meaning of the word, as in light and happy. Since there is nothing intrinsically happy about homosexuality, its use reveals it's just another euphemizing device to sell a cognition-altering idea of homosexuality to the masses.

Commenting on the rights of defendants in abuse cases, the bill's sponsor, state Senator Steven A. Tolman, a Brighton Democrat, said, ''Child predators should not have rights."

Other than the occasional skeptical question from Judiciary Committee members, yesterday's hearing was entirely dominated by those supporting the bill, including several psychologists and therapists who repeatedly said that child sexual abuse is unlike any other crime.

''Shame keeps children from telling anyone when it first happens and can keep them silent for many, many years," said Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist and New England coordinator for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, an advocacy group. ''It often takes decades to get past that."

The advocates presented lawmakers with a small-scale survey by Boston lawyer Carmen Durso, who represents many alleged abuse victims. He found that it took an average of 32.3 years before child sexual abuse victims revealed the episode.

Lawmakers also heard testimony from Roy Simmons, a former player with the New York Giants and Washington Redskins, who recently revealed in a published memoir that he had been raped by a family acquaintance at age 11 and suffered mental anguish that led to drug problems and depression.

''I felt that it was my fault," said Simmons, a Martha's Vineyard resident. ''I'm still in therapy."

From an Ace thread regarding the Scientology vs. South Park squabble: Isaac Hayes Quits South Park Over "Religious Bigotry"

Isaac Hayes has quit "South Park," where he voices Chef, saying he can no longer stomach its take on religion.
...

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem - and he's cashed plenty of checks - with our show making fun of Christians."

...

Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

Comment by "sandy burger:"

I do think that isaac Hayes is an idiot and a hypocrite, not to mention a scientologist. And his statement about all religions is obviously a lie, as Matt Stone correctly points out.

But Matt Stone is wrong, too, when he says, "He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin". This statement is bunk. If we were talking about outlawing mockery, it would be one thing. But it's not intolerance and bigotry to promote certain specific beliefs and refuse to be a party to mocking them. In Hayes' case, it may be stupid and even hypocritical, and his statement about it is at least partly a lie. But it is silly to call it "intolerance and bigotry".

Very discerning observation, Sandy. Actually, I would even take it further.

"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old soul singer and outspoken Scientologist said.

There is a lot of intolerance and bigotry towards religion in the US right now, and the satire is just the tip of the iceberg. I was just reading this article about a new case of a girl who got fired because she spoke of her religion (Christian) to a few co-workers during her lunch hour! I mean, talking about your religion for 15 minutes has always been a felony, no less - you all should know that. So I don't think he is being hypocritical about how bad things are regarding respect for religion in general, but if he was so respectful, why does he work for this trashy, disgusting series? Major hypocrite.

"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."

I think he was just making an appeal so that (specially) other religious people could identify with his objection. That's why he said "religious beliefs," meaning all religions, when, in fact, as it was pointed out, he had no problem in the past mocking all other religions. So hypocrisy in one way there.

But, on the other hand, Scientology, like many of the big religions (Catholicism, Judaism, several of the big Protestant groups, etc) posits itself as the Truth, as The religion. So for a Scientologist, it's not a problem to mock other religions, which are considered nothing more than superstitions, I imagine.

But when it comes to mocking his religion, then it's a Problem. This is not a hypocritical stance for people who believe that only their religion is really a valid one. So no hypocrisy there, if one takes his self-centered religion perspective.

Hey, could it be that the Catholic bishops in MA are finally acting Catholic because of the new pope?

If you can't practice your Catholicism (or religion) in your own so-called free country - either you are not free, or your country is not a free country because it does not allow you to be free.

Therefore the so-called separation of Church and State is always a hypocritical one, because it is impossible to separate the two.

A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to require Google Inc. (GOOG) to turn over some information to the Department of Justice in its quest to revive a law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

May it be just the beginning of how Google gets hit.

Interesting free speech case.

Loneliness is all about feeling isolated, but it’s actually quite common, a new study shows.

An Australian study of 1,200 adults published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing this month found that nearly a third of respondents reported being lonely.

Among the findings:

--Thirty-five percent reported being lonely.

--Men were more likely than women to report being lonely.

--People who said they had “strong religious beliefs” were less likely to report being lonely. [interesting]

--People with higher incomes reported less loneliness. [not very surprising]

Does age make a difference in loneliness? Lauder’s survey didn’t prove that.

The survey showed that loneliness was lowest for 18- to 19-year-olds and highest for people in their 40s, with the elderly falling somewhere in between. However, researchers said those results could have been due to chance, and that the study did not prove that age was a factor in loneliness. So, don’t fear that your 40s will be a particularly lonely decade.

In addition, retirees reported less loneliness than unemployed people.

Length of time living in the area didn’t matter. Neither did the number of a person’s social ties.[I found this really surprising, but then you think about why it may be, it's not really all that surprising.]

“Loneliness has less to do with the quantity of social relationships than with the quality” of those relationships, the researchers write.

Did you hear that, upstairs people? We do not want arctic cold in March, this is horrible! :-) I am freezing! Argh.

Saying bye-bye to buying - A YEAR OF DOING WITHOUT -- NO RESTAURANTS, NO WINE, NO SPLURGES -- AND MAKING DO WITH LESS

A woman slips in the New York City slush a few days before Christmas, dumping her just-bought presents in the muck, and decides, ``Bah, humbug. Who needs all this stuff, anyway?''

And thereby, she decides to spend the next year without shopping. At all. Well, except for necessities.

That's the premise behind Judith Levine's memoir of how she didn't contribute to consumer spending in 2004. Her tale, ``Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping,'' is often funny, sometimes illuminating, sometimes provocative.

It sounds like a book someone should have thought of writing a long time ago, as it's quite overdue and it's really a very interesting psychological experiment.

However, the reporter asks at the end of their article: "What's a writer [Judith Levine] who makes $40,000 to $45,000 a year doing with $8,000 in credit card purchases?"

So maybe this writer had been brainstorming for quite awhile for ideas to write a book that would be catchy enough to fetch much more than 40 grand a year and she finally comes up with this "no shopping for a year" idea and then colors it up by saying it was some holiday shopping flash inspiration that finally went off.

I haven't even looked at one page of the book, but it makes me suspicious that it's full of invented anecdotes, like the "based on a real story" movie flicks that are often 90% fictionalized to make it more entertaining and marketable. Depending on how she treated the subject, however, it could still be both insightful and funny.

I could certainly write a book like this from my own (involuntary) experience. ;-)

Consumerism is a very powerful force, and most people hate to acknowledge it dominates them much more than they control it.

wow - that's a lot!

A 2000 statistic in a newspaper article that 42.4 percent of black women have never been married inspired the filmmakers behind Something New, a romantic comedy that explores a professionally successful black woman's issues-fraught decision to date a white man. [...]

"In a nutshell, the real crisis facing black women is too few men with too few resources," says Larry E. Davis, author of Black and Single and dean of the School of Social Work and director of the Center on Race and Social Problems at the University of Pittsburgh.

"The education and professional advancements of black men have paled in comparison to those of black women. Two-thirds of all college degrees that go to black Americans go to black women."

That's a big imbalance!

I don't judge people for not feeling attracted to people outside their race (as long as it's not due to racism), which is a different issue than what this article focuses on, in any event. I am very, very rarely attracted to men outside my race, but I am happy to see any bi-racial couple, of any racial mix. If it's love, it's great, no matter what the race. And if there are less people who are lonely because they have found a partner (who happens to be of a different race), all the better for the world.

He's been in therapy for years, but is Tony Soprano really getting any better?

If not, then why does he still go? For that matter, if he is better, why does he still go?

"I don't know," shrugs Lorraine Bracco, the actress who, in the guise of Dr. Jennifer Melfi, has sat across the room, dispensing Prozac and listening to Tony vent, for five long years.

"Do you think Tony got better? I mean, it's job security (for me) that he doesn't, but ..."

She's being glib, but it's a legitimate question. [actually a lot of psychotherapists have no problem with breaching ethics in that respect]

From the beginning, The Sopranos' defining dramatic device has been its use of psychotherapy as an emotional and psychological context.

Over the years, it has often transcended the traditional doctor-patient relationship — for example, in the first season, an incredulous Melfi was briefly forced into hiding (or "out on the lam," as she was later aghast to hear herself say) when their association threatened her life.

And though, for a time, she refused to see him — and later, a time where he refused to see her — they always seem to somehow resolve their issues, and get back to dealing and healing.

But has it done him any good?

"Well, he's not having panic attacks any more," Bracco offers, meekly.

Her boss, David Chase, is typically blunt: "We're trying to depict real psychotherapy. So of course he gets nothing out of it."

Then the article writer goes on to interview a real therapist about what they think of the kind of therapy Tony Soprano is getting. And she is quoted as saying:

Would she herself have treated him differently?

More like, not at all.

"I wouldn't," she says, "because of what he does. I'm not a moralistic person, but on principle, from an ethical perspective, I just couldn't do it."

"I am not a moralist person" - right there the problem with a lot of therapy. The objective of many therapists, aside from getting (a lot) of green, is to make the person feel better, not to have their client acquire character (or ethics), because people who don't have character most of the time don't want to have it, and they don't feel good by being called on it. And this complete unethical circus is what therapists disguise as their "lofty ethics."

Of course! The supermarket I go to is having a special on chocolate mousse, but since I am not here to be a commercial, I won't mention the brand. I'll just say that I really like it and I hadn't eaten chocolate mousse in a long time, actually it's not something I've eaten much in the last 15 years. I did eat quite a bit of it growing up, as with many other desserts, since I could eat tons of sugar as a kid.

So I'm just having a grand time having 2 or 3 servings of dark chocolate mousse per day this last week. And often, it starts at breakfast. ;-)

I have a feeling we will be seeing more and more of these scandals in the future.

Google Gobbles Up Web-Based Word Processor Writely

Search giant Google says it has purchased the company that makes Writely, a Web-based word processing feature. While better known for its consumer search engine, Google is mounting a significant effort to win over office computer desktops.

Its earlier release of a Google Pack of online features, and a deal with Sun Microsystems (SUN) to deliver the digitized goods was a step in this direction.

In order to battle office software king Microsoft (MSFT), Google needs to fatten its array of business class offerings to fill glaring holes, such as a day planner.

And probably in their terms of usage, you'll have to agree that Google will have the right to keep a private database of everything you write, forever, for their own purposes.

I was reflecting yesterday about one specific type of propaganda device that is used by pro-homosexuals to exculpate homosexuals and bisexuals who perpetrate violence. Regarding this pro-homosexual propaganda device, the perpetrator is exonerated from having any responsibility for all of their violent and diseased behavior and the blame is shifted to the conservative society that does not accept and normalize homosexuality. This perception-altering device is the opposite of the scapegoating device, whereby the victim is blamed for whatever violence they suffered. The "exonerate the (homosexual) perpetrator" device promotes the "intolerance to my homosexuality made me do it" excuse, it made me rape, it made me abuse, it made me kill, it made me sexually harass, it made me spread AIDS, etc etc. This blame-shifting device turns the homosexual perpetrator into a victim and the real victim basically disappears into thin air, receiving no consideration whatsoever.

One of pro-homos' chief tenets states that the sole explanation to all problems that homosexuals have in the world is the repression of their homosexuality by (conservative) society, not their own lack of character, diseased mind, corrupt attitudes, etc. Therefore if homosexuals commit any type of violence, it can only be because society has repressed their homosexuality and not accepted it.

This is just a shoddy propaganda device to fool the audience regarding how lacking in character and diseased are the minds of many homos and bisexuals, who, like other respective heterosexual criminals, have reasons much more complex and ignominious than the repression of sexuality. Simultaneously, this cognition-altering device aims at making the audience feel guilty for not normalizing homosexuality, as if that were to blame for every problem homos and bisexuals have in the world.

If we take this tenet to be true, another illogical aspect reveals itself quite readily. Pro-homos fail to explain why only homosexuals commit every single type of crime as a consequence of this supposed sexual repression. If a heterosexual man sexually abuses a teenage girl, the reasons will be various, but certainly not the repression of his sexuality, since heterosexuality is socially accepted. Pro-homos agree to that. But if a homosexual woman sexually abuses a teenage girl, for example, pro-homos immediatelly shout that it can only be because the lesbian lowlife was not accepted regarding her homosexuality. Therefore pro-homos fail to explain why only homosexuals perpetrate all crimes based on repression of their sexuality, when heterosexuals are given very different causal explanations for the very same crimes. And another additional illogical development of this pro-homo tenet is how to explain why bisexuals commit all kinds of crimes. Is it then half attributed to society not accepting bisexuality and half due to the bisexual's diseased character?

The more we delve into the logic of the pro-homosexual world view, their tenets and explanations to reality, the more absurd it reveals itself.

Update: Found his online portfolio - my greatest photography discovery recently! Wow!

---

More awe-striking photos at JavaJive:

“The photographic artworks of Gregory Colbert explore the poetic sensibilities of animals in their natural habitat as they interact with human beings. No longer shown as merely a member of the family of man, humans are seen as a member of the family of animals.

Canadian-born artist Gregory Colbert began his career in Paris making documentary films about social issues. Filmmaking led to his work as a fine arts photographer, and the first public exhibition of his work was held in 1992 at the Musée de l’Elysée in Switzerland.

For the next ten years, Colbert showed no films and exhibited none of his art. Instead, he travelled to such places as India, Burma, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Dominica, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tonga, Namibia and Antarctica to film and photograph wondrous interactions between human beings and animals.”

Since 1992 photographer and filmmaker Gregory Colbert has collaborated with more than 40 species around the world to create a 21st-century bestiary. These images attempt to express the world not only through human eyes, but also through the eyes of a whale, an elephant, a manatee, a meerkat, a cheetah, or an orangutan.”

My comment to an ACE post.

For a second there, my jaw dropped. What, a liberal actually acknowledging there were lots of homos in the SS and other fascist groups? And that they delighted in the carrying out the holocaust and other monstrous deeds? Could liberals be honest about just one aspect of how violent homos were/are? Came to the conclusion too soon.

What apparently was a brief moment of truth was nothing more than pro-homos sole explanation to all the problems in the world : the repression of homosexuality. A pro-homosexual’s incredibly bright mind follows this kind of logic :

If there were sadistic SS homos, it’s because their homosexuality was repressed. If there are homo murderers, it’s because those conservative meanies repress homosexuality. If there are fat homos, it’s because their homosexuality is being repressed. If homos abuse adolescents, it’s because their homosexuality is being repressed. If the syphilis rate is increasing among homos, it’s because society frowns upon homo saunas. If homos rape male victims, it’s because their sexuality is not accepted. If they prostitute boys, it’s because they are being repressed. If they are poor, if they flunk school, if they have a cold, it’s because of homosexual unacceptance. Every single violence problem that homos perpetrate can only be due to homosexuality not being completely legitimized and shoved down everyone’s throat.

Just a shoddy propaganda device to fool the plebs regarding how lacking in character and diseased are the minds of many homos and bisexuals, who, like their respective heterosexual criminals, have reasons much more complex and ignominious than repression of sexuality.

The thrust of the « blame everything on homosexual repression » argument is exactly analogous to the « blame everything on Bush » one. It is all Bush’s fault. Always. Everywhere. Forever.

Right.